'\xr    Ci  *  °FTHE 

Initrmitg  fff  Califwjuut, 


No. 


X0/ 


Division 


Rangi 


Shelf. 


Received. 


4t% 


**l  Mark  it  st 


■■'*'■■■ 


MB 


V 

if 


I 


It 
1 1 


3 


LETTERS 


ON  THE 


OF  CHRIST. 


LETTERS 


BVOMBRiMli  sohbidiiip 


OF  CHRIST: 


ADDRESSED  TO 

THE  REV.  PROFESSOR  STUART. 

OF  ANDOVER. 


BY  SAMUEL  MILLER,  D.  D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY  AND  CHURCH  GOYERNME>Tj 

IX  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN 

CHURCH.  AT  PRINCETON. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

PUBLISHED   BY  W.  W.  WOODWARD, 

NO.  52,  SOUTH-WEST  CORNER  OF  CHESNU.T 
AND  SECOND  STREETS. 


1823. 


EASTERN  DISTRICT  OF  PENNSYLTANIA,  TO  WIT: 

i*******      BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  Sixth  day 

I  Seal.  *  of  May  in  the  forty-seventh  year  of  the  Independence 

f*m****l  of  the  United  States  of  America,  A.  D  1823,  William 

W.  Woodward,  of  the  said  District,  hath  deposited  in  this  office 

the  title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  he  claims  as  proprietor, 

in  the  words  following,  to  wit : 

Letters  on  the  Eternal  Sonship  of  Christ :  addressed  to  the 
Rev.  Professor  Stuart,  of  Andover.  By  Samuel  Miller,  D.  D. 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Church  Government, 
in  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  at 
Princeton. 

In  conformity  to  the  act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
entituled,  "  An  act  for  the  encouragement  of  Learning,  by  secur- 
ing the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  authors  and 
proprietors  of  such  Copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned." 
— And  also  to  the  Act,  entitled  "  An  act  supplementary  to  an  act, 
entitled  **  An  act  for  the  encouragement  of  Learning,  by  secur- 
ing the  copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  authors  and 
proprietors  of  such  Copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned," 
and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  designing,  en- 
graving, and  etching  historical  and  other  prints. 

D.  CALDWELL. 
Clerk  of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


A  2 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  I. 

Introductory  remarks— Thanks  to  Professor  S.  for 
the  manner  in  which  he  has  written — The  author,  how- 
ever, not  satisfied  with  his  arguments — Circumstances 
which  led  him  to  speak  of  the  eternal  Sonship  of  Christ,  in 
his  "Letters  onUnitarianism" — Regrets  his  unguarded  lan- 
guage in  one  sentence — Explains  the  meaning  of  that  sen- 
tence— Deprecates  the  feelings  and  language  of  contro- 
versy— No  reason  to  apprehend  an  unfavourable  result 
from  this  discussion — Queries  as  to  the  prevalence  of  the 
doctrine  opposed,  in  the  United  States — Doubts  expressed 
whether  great  discoveries  in  Theology  are  to  be  expected 
— We  do  not  necessarily  stand  on  the  shoulders  of  ancient 
divines — Conclusion.      -      ------    Page  13 — SO 

LETTER  II. 

Statement  of  the  doctrine  which  the  author  believes,  and 
proposes  to  defend — He  does  not  admit  into  his  creed  on 
this  subject  any  ideas  of  inferiority  or  subordination  on  the 


Vlll  CONTENTS'. 

part  of  the  Son — Objects  to  a  part  of  Bishop  Bull's  creed 
— Is  not  willing  to  acknowledge  even  Turretine  as  his 
representative — This  doctrine  not  disputed  among  the  Or- 
thodox till  after  Turretine's  death — Doctrine  stated  at 
length — Does  not  admit  of  being  explained — Quotations 
from  Ambrose  and  from  Basil  to  this  amount.    -   31 — 43 


LETTER  III. 

Testimony  of  Scripture — The  Bible  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice — Direct  testimony  of  Scripture — 
First  argument,  from  the  correlate  titles  of  Father  and 
Son — Second  argument,  from  the  manner  in  which  the 
phrase  "Son  of  God"  is  used  in  scripture— Third  argu- 
ment, from  t^ose  passages  which  represent  the  Father  as 
sending  his  Son,  giving  his  Son,  &c. — Fourth  argument, 
from  the  great  stress  laid,  in  the  New  Testament,  on  the 
Father's  wonderful  condescension  and  love,  in  not  with- 
holding his  beloved  Son,  &c. — Fifth  argument,  from  the 
language  in  which  the  New  Testament  speaks  of  the  in- 
carnation of  the  Son  of  God— Sixth  argument,  from  the 
fact,  that  the  titles  given  to  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  ex- 
press relation  to  each  other,  as  well  as  co-eternity  and  co- 
equality— Seventh  argument,  drawn  from  detached  pas- 
sages of  Scripture.     -    -    -    44—99 

LETTER  IV. 

Answer  to  those  arguments  which  are  drawn  from  scrip- 
ture by  Professor  S. — He  holds  to  several  different  Filia- 


CONTENTS.  IX 

tions — Strong  objections  to  this  representation— His  doc- 
trine, in  some  of  its  aspects,  tends  to  *Tri-theism — Objec- 
tions urged  against  his  position  that  Logos  is  the  only  ap- 
propriate title  of  Christ,  as  the  Second  Person  of  the  Tri- 
nity— Objections  to  his  manner  of  speaking  of  the  opinion, 
that  the  Son  of  God  appeared  to  the  Patriarchs  under  the 
old  dispensation-— Remarks  on  a  number  of  passages  in  de- 
tail, which  Professor  S.  adduces  in  support  of  his  creed- 
Close  of  the  Letter. 100—145 


LETTER  V. 

Testimony  of  the  Early  Fathers — It  was  not  originally 
intended  to  confine  the  appeal  to  the  Ante-Nicene  Fa- 
thers— Professor  Stuart  once  himself  entertained  the  opi- 
nion respecting  the  Fathers  in  relation  to  this  subject, 
which  he  now  opposes— The  author  never  asserted  that 
the  Fathers  believed  in  the  necessity  of  the  Saviour's 
Sonship — Several  preliminary  remarks — The  testimony  of 
the  Fathers  examined  in  order — Barnabas — Hermas — 
Ignatius,  with  remarks— Justin  Martyr,  with  remarks 

at  large— Bishop  Bull  defended  in  relation  to  Justin 

Iren^us,  with  comments Theophilus Athena- 

goras,  with  remarks — Clemens  Alexandrinus,  with 

observations Hippolytus,  with  remarks Letter  of 

Six  Bishops  at  the  Council  of  Antioch Confession  of 

Faith,  by  Gregory  Thaumaturgus— Genuineness   of 

that  Confession  defended Origen— Proof  of  his  opinion 

on  this  subject— No  evidence  that  his  creed  was  dictated  by 
bis  philosophical   principles— Dionysius   of  Alexan- 


X  CONTENTS. 

dria— Conclusive  evidence  that  he  maintained  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  Sonship— «— Dionysius,  of  Rome  maintained  the 

same  opinion Lucian,  of  Antioch— His  Creed—The 

genuineness  of  it  defended Pamphilus,  of  Cesarea 

Theognostus,  of  Alexandria, Methodius Con- 
clusion of  the  Letter.     -     --------    146—207 

LETTER  VI. 

Latin  Fathers  examined Tertullian— Several  ex- 
tracts   from    him — Remarks Novatian — Extracts — 

Remarks Cyprian— Extracts — Remarks Lactan- 

tius— Extracts— Remarks— — General  observations  on  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers,  intended  to  shew  the  certainty  of 

their  belief  in  eternal  Sonship Reasons  why  the  Nicene 

Creed  could  not  have  been  an  innovation The  universal 

reception  of  the  doctrine  here  maintained,  among  the  Or- 
thodox, from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  to  the  present  day, 

an  important  fact  in  its  favour Concluding  remarks. 

208—247 

LETTER  VII. 

Objections  answered First  objection;  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Eternal  Sonship  cannot  be  understood — Answered 
Second  objection;  that  if  the  Sonship  of  Christ  be  vo- 
luntary, it  cannot  be  necessary  and  eternal — Answered 

Third  objection ;  that,  if  the  doctrine  of  eternal  Sonship 
be  admitted,  it  will  follow  that  the  same  numerical  essence 
communicates  the  whole  of  itself  to  the  same  numerical 


CONTENTS.  XI 

essence— Answered Fourth  objection;  that  if  Christ 

be  the  eternal  Son  of  the  Father,  this  Sonship  must  involve 
inferiority  and  dependence — Answered Fifth  objec- 
tion ;  that  the  doctrine  of  eternal  Sonship  tends  to  favour 

and  extend  Arianism— Answered An  opinion  expressed 

that  the  reverse  is  the  case Doubt  suggested  whether 

speculations  on  subjects  of  this  kind  are  truly  profitable 
Closing  remarks. -----    248—280 


LETTER  VIII. 

Circumstances  in  which  the  preceding  Letters  were  pre- 
pared— The  discussion  extended  greatly  beyond  the  au- 
thor's original  purpose — He  feels  thankful  for  being  called 
to  re-examine  the  subject — General  estimate  of  the  impor- 
tance of  the  question  involved  in  this  correspondence—The 
doctrine  opposed,  not  by  any  means  to  be  regarded  as  a 
fundamental  error — Yet,  if  it  be  a  departure  at  all  from 
Gospel  truth,  not  likely  to  be  harmless — So  far  as  received, 
will  probably  impair  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Re- 
deemer's Divinity — More  mischief  to  be  apprehended,  in 
this  case,  from  the  manner  in  which  the  doctrine  is  de- 
fended, than  from  the  doctrine  itself — Teachers  who  are 
truly  pious,  and  substantially  orthodox  themselves,  may, 
by  their  manner  of  communicating  instruction,  be  instru- 
mental in  leading  others  most  seriously  astray — The  author 
disclaims  the  character  of  a  "  reprover" — He  only  claims 
the  privilege  of  exhibiting  and  defending  his  own  opinions 
—An  unwillingness  to  continue  this  discussion  expressed — 
Valedictory  remarks. 281—295 


ERRATA. 

P.  59.  I.  4.  for  Morxnus,  read  Mornseus* 
P.  80.  1.  1.  for  sometimes  read  generally. 
P.  110. 1.  3.  from  bottom  for  Father,  read  Son. 


LETTERS. 


LETTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS, 

REVEREND  AND  DEAR  BROTHER, 

I  have  read  with  serious  and  most 
respectful  attention  the  Letters  which  you  ad- 
dressed to  me  on  "  the  Eternal  Generation  of 
the  Son  of  God."  The  subject  I  cannot  but 
deem  highly  important.  And,  as  One  whom  I 
regard  with  so  much  cordial  esteem,  has  thus 
publickly  called  upon  me,  either  to  defend  or 
abandon  the  ground  which  I  had  taken ;  and 
as  I  do  not  feel  prepared  to  abandon  it,  per- 
haps it  is  incumbent  on  me  to  say  something  in 
its  defence.  In  attempting  this,  though  I  do 
not  venture  to  hope  that  what  I  have  to  offer 
will  produce  a  revolution  in  your  opinion,  it 
will  at  least  serve  to  shew  the  reasons  of  mine. 
Before  I  proceed  further,  allow  me  heartily 
to  thank  you  for  the  fraternal  respect  and 
B 


14  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

urbanity  with  which  you  have  written  on  this 
subject.  I  thank  you  for  the  honour  you  have 
done  me  by  your  manner  of  addressing  me.  I 
congratulate  you  on  the  still  greater  honour  you 
have  done  yourself,  by  maintaining,  through- 
out, with  such  perfect  success,  the  temper  and 
language  of  a  gentleman  and  a  christian.  And, 
most  of  all,  I  rejoice  in  the  honour  you  have, 
done  our  common  Christianity,  by  shewing  the 
enemies  of  the  truth  with  what  freedom  from 
unhallowed  feelings  a  friend  of  general  ortho- 
doxy can  plead  for  his  opinions. 

But  while  I  make  this  acknowledgment,  and 
make  it  with  unfeigned  pleasure,  I  must  say 
that  your  arguments  have  totally  failed  of  con- 
vincing me  that  the  positions  which  I  laid  down 
in  my  "  Letters  on  Unitarianism,"  on  the 
Eternal  Sonship  of  Christ,  are  untenable.  Nay 
—pardon  me,  my  dear  Sir,  for  saying,  what 
candour,  and  a  conscientious  regard  to  truth 
extort  from  me — Your  pamphlet  has  impressed 
me  with  a  stronger  conviction  than  ever  of  the 
unsoundness  of  the  cause  which  it  is  intended 
to  support,  and  of  the  questionable  tendency — 
to  speak  in  the  most  guarded  terms, — of  some 
of  the  opinions  which  it  contains,  and  especially 
of  some  of  the  means  to  which  you  have  re- 
sorted for  maintaining  them.    This  conviction 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  15 

I  shall  endeavour,  with  all  possible  frankness, 
to  explain  in  the  sequel.  May  I  be  enabled  to 
execute  my  purpose  in  a  manner  which  shall 
evince  that  the  attainment  of  truth,  and  not 
victory,  is  my  aim  ! 

It  has  been  the  occasion  of  no  small  regret  to 
me,  that  my  mode  of  expressing  myself,  in  what 
little  I  have  said  on  this  subject  in  my  "  Let- 
ters," shouid  be  considered  by  any  as  liable  to 
the  charge  of  undue  severity,  or  as  deficient  in 
christian  courtesy.  Nothing,  I  can  declare, 
was  more  remote  from  my  intention  or  wish 
than  writing  a  line  which  might  justly  be  con- 
strued as  an  offensive  attack  on  any  one,  or 
which  would  be  likely  to  provoke  controversy. 
I  will  not  disguise,  however,  that  something 
which  you  had  said  in  one  of  your  Letters  to 
Dr.  Charming,  was  partly  in  my  view  in  what 
I  wrote.  And  as  you  have  set  me  so  noble  an 
example  of  candour,  I  will  frankly  inform  you 
by  what  considerations  I  was  induced  to  touch 
on  the  subject  under  discussion,  in  my  cursory 
remarks  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

While  I  read  your  Letters  to  Dr.  Channing 
with  high  respect  for  the  learning  and  talent 
which  they  manifested ;  and  with  no  little  gra- 
titude to  a  Brother,  who  was  willing  to  employ 
his  time  and  his  strength  in  so  good  a  cause ; 


16  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

I  must  confess  that  my  pleasure  in  perusing 
them  suffered  considerable  deduction  on  ac- 
count of  several  things  which  they  contained. 
I  thought  that  you  had  made  some  concessions 
to  the  enemies  of  the  truth,  which  could  not 
fail  to  impair  the  strength  of  your  cause;  and 
that,  in  defending  that  cause,  you  had  aban- 
doned some  of  the  old,  and  as  I  verily  believed, 
scriptural,  positions  and  language,  which  I  had 
been  long  accustomed  to  see  the  Orthodox 
maintain,  and  which  I  could  not  but  regard  as 
of  great  value  in  their  system.  But  I  was  par- 
ticularly dissatisfied  with  the  manner  in  which, 
in  your  Second  and  Fourth  Letters,  you  treated 
the  doctrine  of  the  Eternal  Sonship  of  Christ. 
It  appeared  to  me  that  you  not  only  opposed 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  on  that  subject,  but 
that  you  did  it  with  a  degree  of  confidence, 
and  even  severity,  which  I  was  at  a  loss  either 
to  justify  or  explain.  I  was  not  at  that  time 
aware  that  so  large  a  portion  of  the  orthodox 
clergy  of  New-England  agreed  with  you  in 
opinion,  as  you  seem  to  believe ;  nor  did  I  sup- 
pose that  you  were  unacquainted  with  the 
facts,  that  the  great  body  of  the  clergy  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States, 
were  of  a  very  different  opinion,  and  that  they 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  17 

by  no  means  considered  it  as  a  matter  of  small 
moment. 

It  soon  became  apparent  that  many  of  my 
brethren  of  the  clergy  felt  as  I  did,  or  rather 
felt  still  greater  uneasiness  and  apprehension. 
They  regretted  that  a  work  which  they  con- 
sidered as  containing  so  much  excellent  and  in- 
teresting matter,  should  also  contain  what  they 
could  not  but  deem  calculated  to  do  harm. 
They  doubted  whether  it  was  their  duty  to 
contribute  to  its  circulation,  especially  as  ex- 
hibiting the  sentiments  of  the  orthodox  body. 
I  received  letters  from  different  and  distant 
parts  of  the  country,  expressing  with  regret 
these  feelings,  and  also  urging  the  propriety  of 
some  publication  fitted  to  counteract  the  in- 
fluence of  such  of  its  parts  as  were  thought  to 
be  erroneous.  I  read  these  communications  with 
no  little  anxiety;  but  not  considering  myself  as 
either  bound  or  qualified  to  enter  the  lists  on 
this  subject ;  and  feeling  peculiar  reluctance  to 
engage  in  a  discussion  which  might  be  viewed 
with  pain,  by  some  of  the  friends  of  truth,  and 
would,  pretty  certainly,  be  hailed  by  its  ene- 
mies with  joy ;  I  resolved  to  lament  in  silence 
what  was  going  on,  rather  than  run  the  risk  of 
impairing  the  cordiality  of  intercourse  between 


18  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

Brethren,  who  certainly  ought  not  to  be  di- 
vided. 

Such  was,  unfeignedly,  the  state  of  my  mind, 
when  a  variety  of  unexpected  circumstances  led 
me  to  think  that  it  was  my  duty  to  address  the 
Members  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Baltimore  on  the  subject  of  Unitarianism.  I 
entered  on  the  execution  of  my  plan  without 
the  most  distant  thought  of  saying  a  word  on  the 
Sonship  of  .Christ.  But,  as  I  advanced  in  the 
consideration  of  the  subject,  it  appeared  to  me 
impossible  to  avoid  saying  something  on  that 
point,  without  unfaithfulness  to  the  cause  of 
truth;  and  without  incurring  the  suspicion 
among  the  brethren  of  my  own  Church,  of  be- 
ing either  in  error  or  in  doubt  with  respect  to 
the  doctrine  in  question.  I,  therefore,  felt  my- 
self called  upon,  as  it  fairly  came  in  my  way, 
briefly  but  decisively  to  express  an  opinion  on 
the  subject.  The  thought  of  offending,  even 
the  most  zealous  and  fastidious  adherent  to  the 
doctrine  which  you  hold,  never  entered  my 
mind.  To  deliver  my  conscience,  and  to  avert 
from  myself  unjust  suspicion,  without  wound- 
ing the  feelings  of  a  human  being,  formed  the 
sum  total  of  my  purpose.  If  I  failed  of  attaining 
it,  I  must  regret  the  failure,  but  cannot  re- 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  19 

proach  myself  with  any  intention  different  from 
what  has  been  stated. 

This  is  a  simple  unvarnished  statement  of 
facts.  Some  of  these  facts,  particularly  that 
which  relates  to  the  feelings  of  a  large  body  of 
the  Clergy,  of  the  south  and  west,  in  reference 
to  your  Letters, — if  you  have  not  already 
known,  it  is,  perhaps,  not  improper  you  should 
now  be  made  acquainted  with.  I  will  not  con- 
ceal, however,  as  I  said,  that  there  was  a  re- 
ference, in  what  I  wrote,  to  your  publication. 
But  I  was  really  prompted,  my  dear  Sir,  to 
make  the  remarks  which  I  did,  not  by  any  love 
of  controversy ;  far  less  by  any  disposition  to 
engage  in  controversy  with  you.  I  intended  no 
such  thing ;  anticipated  no  such  thing.  Least 
of  all  did  I  think  of  assailing  any  one  with  lan- 
guage which  ought  certainly  to  be  excluded 
from  the  intercourse  of  brethren. 

Yet  there  is  a  single  sentence,  on  the  subject 
under  consideration,  in  the  Third  of  my 
"  Letters  on  Unitarianism,"  on  which  I  wish 
to  make  a  few  explanatory  remarks.  It  is  in 
these  words — "  Where,  then,  is  the  absurdity 
"  or  contradiction  of  an  eternal,  necessary  ema- 
"  nation  from  him ;  or,  if  you  please,  an  eter- 
"  nal  generation  ;  and  also  an  eternal  proces- 
"  sion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father  and 


20  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

"  the  Son?  To  deny  the  possibility  of  this,  or 
"  to  assert  that  it  is  a  manifest  contradiction, 
"  either  in  terms  or  ideas,  is  to  assert,  that  al- 
"  though  the  Father  is  from  all  eternity,  yet 
6*  he  could  not  act  from  all  eternity ;  which  I 
"  will  venture  to  assert,  is  as  unphilosophical 
"  as  it  is  impious." 

Here,  it  appears  to  me,  that,  upon  every 
principle  of  fair  construction,  the  epithets,  tin- 
philosophical  and  impious  are  applied,  (as 
they  certainly  were  intended  to  be)  only  to  the 
assertion  that  God  the  Father,  though  he  is 
from  eternity,  could  not  act  from  eternity. 
Now  you  declare  that  neither  you,  nor  those 
who  think  with  you,  either  assert  or  believe 
any  such  thing ;  and  yet  you  seem  to  insist  on 
applying  the  offensive  epithets  to  yourselves. 
This  I  most  sincerely  regret.  Nothing,  I  can 
solemnly  assure  you,  my  dear  Sir,  wTas  ever 
further  from  my  thoughts  than  such  an  appli- 
cation. The  epithets  in  question  were  only 
meant  to  be  applied  to  those  who  maintained 
certain  opinions,  which  I  never,  for  one  mo- 
ment, imagined  that  you  or  your  friends  main- 
tained. It  never  occurred  to  my  mind  that  any 
reader  would  think  of  applying  them  to  you. 
I  never  could  permit  myself  to  use  such  lan- 
guage in  reference  to  one  toward  whom  I  feel 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  21 

those  sentiments  of  cordial  respect  and  friend 
ship  which  I  have  the  pleasure  of  cherishing 
for  you.  The  truth  is,  in  what  I  said  on  this 
subject  in  my  "  Letters/'  I  had  in  view  two 
classes  of  opponents — Unitarians,  and  those 
pious,  and  otherwise  orthodox  Brethren  of 
New-England  and  elsewhere,  who,  I  was  sen- 
sible thought  differently  from  me  on  this  sub- 
ject. The,  former  were  in  my  view  in  what  is 
said  in  pages  86,  87,  and  88 ; — the  latter  in 
pages  89,  and  90,  in  a  paragraph  which  is  com- 
menced by  a  specifick  reference  to  their  cha- 
racter. 

Yet,  after  all,  with  the  most  perfect  con- 
sciousness of  innocence,  as  to  my  intention,  in 
this  case,  I  ean  now  see,  on  a  review  of  my  lan- 
guage, that  it  might  have  been  more  carefully 
guarded ;  and  I  do  sincerely  wish  it  had  been 
differently  modified ;  and  especially  that  the 
two-fold  purpose  just  alluded  to,  had  been 
more  intelligibly  and  precisely  stated.  I  hope, 
therefore,  you  will  not  only  acquit  me  of  all 
designed  incivility  $  but  that  you  will,  once  for 
all,  be  persuaded  that  I  am  incapable  of  em- 
ploying any  turn  of  expression  calculated,  in 
the  least  degree,  to  wound  your  feelings.  My 
cause  needs  no  such  weapons ;  and  my  heart, 


22  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

if  I  do  not  deceive  myself,  instinctively  revolts 
from  them. 

In  all  the  earnestness,  then,  with  which  you 
deprecate  the  unhallowed  feelings  and  lan- 
guage of  "  controversy"  on  this  subject,  I  most 
cordially  unite  with  you.  It  shall  be  as  you 
say.  We  will  discuss,  not  dispute.  And  I  do 
sincerely  hope  that  those  timid  friends,  who 
have  apprehended  that  this  discussion  would 
prove  injurious  to  the  cause  of  truth,  will  be 
agreeably  disappointed.  Why  should  it  be  pro- 
ductive of  injury?  Have  not  differences  of  opi- 
nion existed  in  all  ages,  among  the  best  of  men, 
as  well  as  among  those  of  an  opposite  charac- 
ter? Do  not  the  Orthodox  universally  acknow- 
ledge that  diversity  of  views,  as  to  many  points, 
is  quite  consistent,  not  only  with  real,  but  also 
with  ardent  piety  ?  What,  then,  should  pre- 
vent brethren  who  respect  and  love  one  ano- 
ther from  engaging  in  the  amicable  investiga- 
tion of  doctrines  concerning  which  they  may 
differ?  Such  investigations  did  great  good,  in 
establishing  truth,  in  the  third,  fourth,  and 
fifth  centuries.  They  were  no  less  useful, 
though  often  painful,  at  the  period  of  the  Re- 
formation. And  why  not  equally  useful,  though 
sometimes  attended  with  circumstances  which 
render  them  irksome,  now  ?  I  will  not  give  up 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  23 

the  hope  that  you  and  I  can,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  with  some  degree  of  christian  meekness 
and  affection,  compare  opinions,  and  examine 
the  grounds  on  which  they  rest ;  and  that  the 
way  of  truth  will  not  be  evil  spoken  of  on  our 
account. 

And  as  I  trust  the  friends  of  the  Divinity 
and  Atonement  of  Christ,  will  have  no  reason 
to  regret  the  correspondence  in  which  we  are 
engaged ;  so  I  cherish  an  equally  confident  hope 
that  our  Unitarian  neighbours  will  have  no  just 
cause  for  triumph.  Are  Unitarians  all  agreed 
in  opinion?  I  know  of  no  class  of  religionists 
who  differ  more  among  themselves.  Dr.  Price 
and  Dr.  Priestley  differed  widely  in  their  doc- 
trinal views,  and  thought  it  no  disparagement, 
either  of  themselves,  or  of  their  respective  sys- 
tems, to  make  their  points  of  difference,  the 
subject  of  an  amicable  correspondence,  as  we 
are  now  doing.  Nor  is  this  all.  Ecclesiastical 
history  has  shown,  that  Unitarians  can  dispute 
with  as  much  ardent  feeling,  and  even  intem- 
perate passion,  as  others ;  and  that  whenever 
they  had  the  power,  they  were  quite  as  ready 
as  any  other  portion  of  people  calling  them- 
selves christians,  to  make  their  adversaries 
feel  the  weight  of  the  secular,  as  well  as  the 
ecclesiastical  arm.  The  stories  of  Arianism,  in 


24  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

the  fourth  century,  and  of  Socinus,  Blandrata, 
and  Davidies,  in  the  sixteenth,  furnish  com- 
ments on  this  subject,  of  which  no  impartial 
mind  can,  for  a  moment,  doubt  the  import. 

I  cannot  suppose,  therefore,  that  any  en- 
lightened Unitarian  will  be  so  inconsiderate 
or  forgetful,  as  to  indulge  in  premature  tri- 
umph on  seeing  two  professed  friends  of  Or- 
thodoxy diifering  in  opinion,  and  bringing  the 
points  of  difference  between  them  before  the 
publick.  But  I  do  fear,  my  respected  friend, 
as  I  shall  hereafter  more  fully  state,  that  some 
of  your  opinions  and  reasonings  will  turn  out 
to  be  weapons  put  into  the  hands  of  Unitarians. 
I  do  fear,  that,  whatever  may  be  thought  of 
the  leading  doctrine  which  you  maintain,  your 
manner  of  conducting  the  defence  of  it,  will  be 
found  to  aid  a  very  different  cause  from  that 
which  you  and  I  profess  to  love.  It  is  painful 
for  me  to  say  this.  But  I  entered  on  the  pre- 
sent correspondence  with  the  resolution  to 
keep  nothing  back,  but  to  pour  out  the  fulness 
of  my  heart  to  a  Brother,  toward  whom,  how- 
ever he  may  differ  from  me  in  opinion,  I  cannot 
help  feeling  the  most  cordial  and  unreserved 
confidence. 

What  degree  of  prevalence  the  doctrine 
which  you  espouse,  may  have  gained  in  this 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  25 

country,  I  am  unable  with  any  degree  of  con- 
fidence to  decide ;  but  rather  suppose  it  has 
few  adherents  out  of  New-England.  I  do  not 
even  know  who  commenced  the  propagation  of 
it  in  the  United  States.  It  was  natural  that  the 
speculations  of  Roell,  toward  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  in  Holland,  and,  after 
him,  otRidgely,  in  Great- Britain,  should  find 
their  way  across  the  Atlantick,  and  make  some 
disciples.  And,  accordingly,  I  have  no  doubt 
that  this  was  really  the  case.  I  have  heard  of  a 
very  short  published  hint  of  such  opinion,  as 
held  by  an  eminently  pious  clergyman  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadelphia,  about 
forty  years  ago.  Another  Presbyterian  cler- 
gyman, about  the  same  time,  of,  perhaps,  equal 
eminence  for  piety,  but  of  a  more  eccentrick 
disposition,  published  the  same  doctrine,  as  an 
article  of  his  faith.  Not  a  few  reproaches  were 
heaped  upon  us  for  tolerating  such  opinions  in 
our  Church;  but  still  they  were  tolerated.  No 
publick  notice  was  taken  of  them  in  the  way 
of  discipline.  To  these  succeeded  the  acute  and 
venerable  Dr.  Emmons,  of  Massachusetts. 
What  proportion  of  the  New- England  clergy 
may  be,  at  present,  believers  in  that  doctrine, 
I  have  no  means  of  being  accurately  informed. 
It  is  well  known,  however,  that  the  illustrious 

C 


26  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

President  Edwards,  and  also  Doctors  Bellamy 
and  Hopkins,  and  other  distinguished  fathers 
of  the  New-England  churches,  rejected  this 
opinion,  and  to  their  dying  day  adhered  to  the 
old  doctrine.  With  respect  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  my  impression  certainly  is,  that  the 
great  body  of  her  clergy,  at  least  nineteen  out 
of  twenty,  adhere  to  the  old  Nicene,  or  rather, 
as,  with  my  opinion,  I  ought  to  say,  the  trite 
Bible  doctrine.  Certain  it  is,  that  none  of 
them  can  consistently  embrace  any  other,  as 
long  as  they  continue  to  profess  their  belief  in 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  which 
is  so  explicit  on  this  subject. 

I  freely  acknowledge,  with  you,  that  the  doc- 
trine which  I  now  advocate,  is  that  in  which  I 
was  educated.  A  venerated  Parent,  who  had 
studied  Theology  in  Massachusetts,  his  native 
State,  was  my  preceptor.  I  can  truly  say,  even 
more  strongly  than  you  do,  with  respect  to  the 
opposite  opinion,  that,  during  the  early  part 
of  my  theological  life,  I  never  met  with  the 
slightest  hint  of  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of 
Eternal  Generation,  excepting  in  books ;  nor 
ever  heard  a  different  opinion  spoken  of,  but 
as  an  error,  to  be  regarded  with  apprehension. 
The  longer  I  have  reflected  and  inquired  on 
the  subject,  the  more  firm  has  been  my  confi- 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  27 

dence  that  my  original  instruction  was  sound 
and  scriptural.  But  I  am  not  unwilling  again 
to  examine  into  the  correctness  of  that  instruc- 
tion. I  rejoice  that  our  lot  is  cast  in  an  age  and 
a  country  in  which  the  most  unlimited  freedom 
of  inquiry  reigns.  May  this  freedom  never  be 
abridged !  If  I  do  not  deceive  myself,  I  hold 
no  opinion  which  I  am  not  heartily  willing  to 
have  examined  to  the  bottom.  No  man  will 
ever  forfeit  either  my  esteem  or  affection ,  by 
kindly  and  respectfully  calling  me  to  re-in- 
vestigate any  article  in  my  creed,  however 
long  since  I  may  have  supposed  it  to  be  settled. 
And,  in  saying  this,  I  verily  think  I  express 
the  feelings  of  all  my  brethren  in  this  quarter 
of  the  country,  who  concur  with  me  in  senti- 
ment on  the  subject  of  the  present  correspon- 
dence. Let  us  prove  all  things,  and  holdfast 
that  which  is  good.  Many  shall  run  to  and 
fro,  and  knowledge  shall  be  increased. 

Without  stopping  to  inquire,  whether,  as 
you  seem  to  anticipate,  great  discoveries  and 
improvements  are  hereafter  to  be  expected  in 
the  science  of  theology,  and  in  the  elucidation 
of  the  sacred  Scriptures ; — a  question  which, 
indeed,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  we  must 
be  but  ill  qualified  to  decide — one  thing  is  cer- 
tain, that,  neither  as  Protestants,  nor  as  Chris  * 


28  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS, 

tians,  ought  we  to  allow  ourselves  to  shut  our 
eyes  against  the  light,  or  to  be  blindly  go- 
verned by  the  authority  of  our  fathers.  I  ac- 
cede fully  to  the  truth  of  your  remark,  that 
you  and  I,  situated  as  we  are,  ought  to  consider 
ourselves  as  under  double  obligations,  to  inquire 
diligently,  and  to  weigh  well,  what  we  teach. 
And,  allow  me  to  add,  that,  as  we  evidently 
ought  to  teach  our  Pupils,  not  to  rely  on  the 
decisions  of  Councils  or  Synods,  or  on  human 
authority  in  any  shape,  but  to  examine  with  so- 
lemn care  the  only  infallible  Rule  of  faith  and 
practice ;  so,  in  my  opinion,  we  are  equally 
bound  to  guard  them  against  that  spirit  of  rash 
and  hasty  innovation,  either  in  faith  or  prac- 
tice, which  has  so  often  proved  the  bane  of  the 
church  of  Christ.  I  have  long  thought  it  my 
duty  to  inculcate  on  those  theological  students 
whose  principles  I  have  had  any  part  in  form- 
ing, that,  while  free  inquiry  is  commendable, 
and  a  christian  duty ;  a  rage  for  novelty,  an 
ardent  love  of  originality,  as  such,  is  one  of 
the  most  unhappy  symptoms,  in  its  bearing  on 
the  prospect  of  future  usefulness  in  the  church, 
that  a  candidate  for  the  ministry  can  well  ex- 
hibit. I  would  not,  for  my  right  hand,  exhort 
a  young  man  always  to  adhere,  whatever  new 
light  he  may  receive,  to  the  old  theological 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  29 

landmarks  which  our  fathers  have  set  up  ;  but 
I  would  certainly  and  most  earnestly  exhort 
him,  if  he  saw  good  reason  to  depart  from  them, 
to  do  it  slowly,  cautiously,  respectfully,  and 
with  the  most  solemn  and  prayerful  delibe- 
ration. 

You  observe  that  "dwarfs,"  as  we  of  modern 
times  may  be  thought,  compared  with  the 
"  giants  of  yore,"  yet  that  "we  stand,  at  least, 
"  upon  the  shoulders  of  those  ancient  giants, 
"  and  must  needs  have  a  somewhat  more  ex- 
"  tended  horizon  than  they."  I  am  not  quite 
sure,  my  dear  Sir,  that  the  fact  is  really  so.  It 
does  not  appear  to  me  an  easy  thing  to  get  "  on 
"  the  shoulders  of  those  giants."  I  suspect  very 
few  mount  so  high.  Before  we  can  claim  to 
have  attained  so  elevated  a  station,  and  to  en- 
joy "  a  more  extended  horizon"  than  they,  we 
must  not  only  have  their  ponderous  volumes  on 
our  shelves,  but  we  must  have  in  our  heads  and 
in  our  hearts,  all  that  they  had.  For  one,  I  la- 
ment that  I  have  not  a  better  claim  myself  to 
this  honour ;  and  feel  bound  to  cultivate  in  my 
own  mind,  as  well  as  in  the  minds  of  those 
whom  I  may  be  called  to  counsel  in  their  stu- 
dies, a  more  enlarged  and  deep  acquaintance 
with  what  those  "  giants"  have  really  attained 
and  published ;  as  well  as  a  more  profound  ac- 
c  2 


30  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

quaintance  with  those  Scriptures  of  truth, 
which  they  studied,  I  have  no  doubt,  at  least 
as  diligently  and  candidly,  if  not  with  quite  so 
many  helps,  as  we  have  done. 

Such,  my  dear  Brother,  are  the  sentiments 
with  which  I  enter  on  this  correspondence. 
While,  therefore,  I  write,  I  desire  to  look  up 
to  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  that  He  may 
guide  my  heart  and  my  pen  into  all  truth;  that 
He  may  guard  me  from  all  that  irascible 
feeling,  and  all  that  uncandid,  cavilling  spirit, 
which  I  think  I  hate,  and  desire  to  avoid ;  and 
that  our  mutual  edification,  and  the  honour  of 
religion  may  be  promoted  by  whatever  shall 
be  written ! 


LETTER  II 


Statement  of  the  Doctrine,  with  Remarks. 


REVEREND  AND  DEAR  BROTHER, 

Before  I  proceed  to  inquire  whether 
the  Eternal  Generation  of  the  Son  of  God  is 
taught  in  Scripture,  and  was  believed  by  the 
early  Fathers,  I  wish  to  make  a  few  remarks 
on  the  doctrine  itself.  As  you  appear  to  have 
misapprehended  my  views  of  it,  in  several  re- 
spects, I  am  desirous  of  stating  explicitly,  in 
the  putset,  not  so  much  what  I  suppose  the 
doctrine  to  mean,  as  what  I  do  not  mean,  in 
declaring  my  belief  of  it,  and  under  what 
aspects  I  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  it,  as 
an  article  of  my  creed. 

I  begin,  then,  with  declaring,  that,  in  re- 
ceiving the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  Sonship  of 
Christ,  I  do  not  admit  into  my  views  of  the 
subject,  any  ideas  of  creation,  on  the  part  of 
the  Father,  or  of  derivation,  inferiority,  or 


32  QUESTION  STATED. 

subordination,  on  the  part  of  the  Son.  The 
idea  of  a  derived  or  inferior  God  is  quite  as 
abhorrent  to  my  feelings,  and  as  alien  from  my 
creed,  as  it  can  be  from  yours.  I  know,  indeed, 
that  some  zealous  and  able  advocates  of  the 
general  doctrine  for  which  I  plead,  while  they 
maintained  the  strict  and  proper  Divinity  and 
eternity  of  the  Son,  have  used  language  con- 
cerning him  as  if  he  were  to  be  regarded  as  a 
produced  and  subordinate  Being.  The  learned 
and  powerful  Bishop  Bull,  admirably  as  he 
has  written  on  the  Trinitarian  controversy,  and 
in  support  of  the  doctrine  which  forms  the  sub- 
ject of  this  correspondence,  has  yet  expressed 
himself  in  a  way  concerning  the  subordination 
of  the  Son,  in  which  I  cannot  entirely  follow 
him.  For,  if  I  understand  him,  he  not  only 
maintains  an  official  subordination,  as  Media- 
tor, which  I  readily  admit ;  but  also  &  personal 
and  eternal  subordination,  which  I  am  by  no 
means  prepared  to  adopt.  It  ought,  indeed,  in 
justice  to  this  learned  and  able  Divine,  to  be 
stated,  that  similar  language  is  found  in  writers 
who  flourished  long  before  him,  and  even  in 
some  of  the  most  learned  and  zealous  of  the 
post-Nicene  advocates  of  the  doctrine  for 
which  I  plead.  But  I  consider  speculations  of 
this  kind,  as  really  forming  no  just  objection  to 


QUESTION  STATED.  33 

the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  Sonship  of  Christ, 
any  more  than  the  different,  and  ever  varying 
speculations  of  philosophick  divines  on  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  ought  to  shake  our  belief 
in  what  the  Scriptures  have  revealed  to  us  on 
that  subject ;  or  any  more  than  the  diverse, 
and  very  unhappy  illustrations,  which  truly 
pious  and  ingenious  men,  have  sometimes  at- 
tempted to  give  of  the  doctrine  of  Election, 
or  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  influence,  or  of  the 
Divine  Omnipresence,  ought  to  tempt  us  to 
discard  them  all  as  inventions  of  human  folly. 
Allow  me  to  say,  then,  once  for  all,  that  when, 
in  speaking  of  a  Divine  Person  as  eternally  be- 
gotten, you  are  perplexed  yourself,  or  would 
press  me,  with  the  idea  of  a  derived  or  inferior 
God,  I  utterly  protest  against  the  imputation. 
It  appears,  as  I  said,  as  incongruous  in  my 
view,  as  it  can  appear  in  yours.  It  makes  no 
part  of  the  doctrine  of  which  I  would  offer  my- 
self as  the  advocate. 

You  not  only  appear  to  take  for  granted, 
that  the  learned  and  able  Professor  Turretine, 
in  the  chapter  in  his  Theologix  Elencticse, 
which  treats  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  Genera- 
tion, will  be  acknowledged  as  a  fair  represen- 
tative of  the  advocates  of  that  doctrine ;  but 
you  also  intimate,  that  he  is  to  be  considered 


34  QUESTION  STATED. 

as  having  «  laid  out  very  much  of  his  strength" 
on  that  chapter,  so  that  it  may  be  supposed  to 
contain  the  substance  of  what  can  be  said  in 
support  of  the  doctrine  in  question.  This,  I 
believe,  is  not  the  opinion  of  the  greatest  ad- 
mirers of  that  profound  and  illustrious  divine. 
It  is  true,  such  were  his  talents  and  erudition, 
that  few  writers  can  safely  promise  themselves, 
in  common  cases,  to  make  very  advantageous 
additions  to  any  discussion,  in  which  he  really 
"laid  out  his  strength."  But  the  fact  is,  that 
many  warm  friends  of  Turretine's  system  con- 
sider his  chapter  on  the  subject  under  consi- 
deration, as  by  no  means  among  the  most  com- 
plete and  satisfactory  in  his  work.  Nor,  in- 
deed, could  it  reasonably  be  expected  to  be  so, 
in  reference  to  the  controversy  as  it  exists  in 
our  day,  among  different  portions  of  the  Tri- 
nitarians. Every  writer  will  be  apt  to  lay  out 
the  greatest  portion  of  his  strength  upon  those 
subjects  which  are  most  controverted,  and 
deemed  most  important,  at  the  time  in  which 
he  writes.  Now  it  is  well  known,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  eternal  Generation  of  the  Son  of 
God,  in  the  days  of  Turretine,  was  scarcely  at 
all,  and  certainly  not  in  any  prominent  or  in- 
teresting degree,  a  matter  of  dispute  among 
the  Orthodox.     None  who,  at  that  time,  ac- 


QUESTION  STATED.  35 

knowledged  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  ever 
thought  of  denying  his  eternal  Sonship.  The 
celebrated  Herman  Alexander  JRoell,  of  Hol- 
land, before  alluded  to,  was,  if  I  mistake  not, 
the  first  Trinitarian  who  ever  distinguished 
himself  by  embracing  and  publishing  the  doc- 
trine on  that  subject  which  you  now  hold.  And 
he  did  not  bring  his  opinions  before  the  pub- 
lick  until  after  Tarretine's  death.  Hence  the 
latter,  in  illustrating  and  defending  the  ortho- 
dox doctrine  in  relation  to  this  point,  speaks  of 
none  as  opponents  but  Jlrians  and  Socinians  ; 
and  in  his  mode  of  treating  it,  certainly  evinces 
nothing  more  than  his  ordinary  degree  of  atten- 
tion and  effort.  Indeed  I  should  think  most 
readers  would  judge  that  his  chapter  on  this 
subject  was  below,  rather  than  above,  his  usual 
grade  of  fulness  and  ability. 

I  am  not,  therefore,  willing  to  acknowledge 
even  the  venerable  Turretine,  highly  as  I 
esteem  him,  as  my  representative  on  this  sub- 
ject. His  language  may  all  be  very  justifiable  ; 
but  I  do  not  adopt  it ;  neither  do  I,  at  present, 
impugn  it.  Nor  am  I  at  all  more  disposed  to 
allow  Gerhard,  or  Brettschneider,ov Reinhard, 
whom  you  quote,  to  speak  for  me  on  the  sub- 
ject of  eternal  generation.  I  will  not  stop  to 
canvass  their  respective  modes  of  speaking. 


36  QUESTION  STATED. 

They  may  all  be  erroneous ;  and  yet  the  doc- 
trine  which  they  advocate  a  real  and  impor- 
tant article  of  the  christian  faith. 

Permit  me,  then,  to  state,  in  a  few  words, 
the  doctrine,  as  to  this  point,  of  which  I  am 
willing  to  be  considered  as  the  advocate.  And 
I  attempt  this,  as  the  venerable  Augustine  de- 
clares he  undertook  to  discuss  an  allied  sub- 
ject— "  Not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
u  plaining  the  truth,  as  of  avoiding  silence 
u  respecting  it,  and  thus  keeping  back  the 
"  truth." 

I  suppose,  then,  not  only  that  there  are  three 
Persons  in  the  adorable  Godhead,  and  that 
ii  these  Three  are  One,  the  same  in  substance, 
••  equal  in  power  and  glory;"  but  that  these 
three  Persons  exist  in  a  state  of  mysterious  and 
ineffable  relation  to  each  other ;  that  "  each," 
as  the  illustrious  Calvin  expresses  it,  "  is  di- 
••  vinely  related  to  the  others,  and  yet  distin- 
u  guished  from  them  by  an  incommunicable 
*<  property  f  and  that,  unitedly,  these  Per- 
sons constitute  the  only  living  and  true  God, 
so  constantly  declared  in  Scripture  to  be  One, 
in  distinction  from  all  the  false  and  multiplied 
gods  of  the  benighted  heathen.  So  far,  if  I 
do  not  mistake,  you  and  I  are  substantially 
agreed. 


QUESTION  STATED.  37 

But  when  we  come  to  explain  ourselves  con- 
cerning the  distinctive  titles,  by  which  the  First 
and  Second  Persons  of  the  Trinity  are  to  be 
designated,  we  materially  differ.  We  find  in 
Scripture  that  the  first  two  of  these  related 
Persons  are  distinguished  from  each  other,  and 
from  the  Third,  by  the  titles  Father  and  Son. 
Now,  the  question  is,  of  what  are  these  titles 
properly  expressive  ?  You  maintain,  that  they 
are  not  intended  to  designate  the  necessary  and 
eternal  relation  between  these  two  Persons,  but 
refer  to  an  official  character  assumed  in  time. 
While  I  maintain,  that  the  necessary  and  eter- 
nal relation  just  alluded  to,  is  immediately  in- 
tended to  be  expressed  by  these  titles ;  that  this 
relation  is  essentially  and  eternally  such  as  to 
afford  ground  for  applying  to  the  First  Person, 
as  such,  the  title  Father,  and  to  the  Second 
Person,  as  such,  the  title  Son.  What  may  be 
the  precise  nature  of  the  relation  intended  to 
be  expressed  by  these  titles,  I  do  not  profess  to 
know.  They  are,  no  doubt,  used  in  condescen- 
sion to  the  limited  faculties, of  man,  as  most  of 
those  terms  are,  and  must  ever  be,  which  are 
employed  to  tell  us  what  God  is.  The  relation 
expressed  by  them  is,  of  course,  very  different, 
nay,  infinitely  different  from  that  which  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  same  terms  when  applied  to 

D 


38  QUESTION  STATED. 

men:  and  yet  we  may  suppose,  so  far  resem- 
bles it,  as  to  render  the  use  of  these  terms  to 
express  it,  proper,  and  more  proper  than  any 
other.  But,  however  we  may  speculate  on  this 
point,  my  belief  is,  that  the  titles  in  question 
are  used  in  Scripture  to  express,  not  any  offi- 
cial investiture,  or  event,  which  took  place  in 
time ;  but  the  eternal  relation  of  the  First  and 
Second  Persons  in  the  Godhead.  That  the 
First  Person  was  from  eternity  Father,  and  the 
Second  Person  from  eternity  Son :  Son,  not 
by  creation,  or  adoption,  or  incarnation,  or 
office ;  but  by  nature ;  the  true,  proper,  co- 
equal, co-essential,  and  co-eternal  Son  of  the 
Father,  because  from  eternity  possessing  the 
same  nature,  and  the  same  plenitude  of  Divine 
.perfection  with  himself. 

I  suppose,  further,  that  the  terms,  begotten 
and  generation,  are  intended  by  the  Spirit  of 
God  to  refer  to  the  same  relation  which  the 
titles  Father  and  Son  express.  If  so,  and  if  the 
Father  was  eternally  Father,  and  the  Son 
eternally  Son;  then  the  latter,  in  the  sense 
meant  to  be  conveyed  by  the  term  begotten, 
was  eternally  begotten.  In  one  word,  the  gene- 
ration of  the  S071  was  eternal.  This  language, 
I  believe,  is  to  be  understood  in  a  Divine  and 
ineifable  sense ;  in  a  sense  as  much  above  its 


QUESTION  STATED.  39 

earthly  sense,  as  the  heavens  are  higher  than 
the  earth.  I  do  not, — I  repeat — admit  that 
they  imply  derivation,  inferiority  or  subordi- 
nation on  the  part  of  the  Son.  Do  you  ask  me, 
What  they  do  imply  ?  I  might  answer,  "  I  do 
'•'  not  know,"  and  yet  stand  upon  equally  firm 
and  tenable  ground  with  yourself,  when  you 
give  this  answer  to  Dr.  Channing,  in  reply  to 
the  question — "  What  is  that  distinction  in  the 
"  Godhead  which  the  term  Person  is  intended 
"  to  designate?" — But  I  will  not,  at  present, 
answer  exactly  thus ;  because  I  think  there  are 
several  things  which  the  Scriptures  enable  us, 
with  some  degree  of  intelligence,  to  say,  that 
the  language  in  question  does  imply.  It  im- 
plies that  the  Son  does,  in  a  sense  analogous  to, 
but  infinitely  above,  that  which  is  applicable  to 
a  human  son,  possess  most  perfectly,  the  same 
nature  with  his  Father ;  that  he  is  the  bright- 
ness of  his  Father's  glory,  and  the  express 
image  of  his  Person.  It  implies,  too,  that 
there  is  between  these  ever  blessed  Persons  an 
intimacy  and  endearment  of  affection,  which 
passeth  knowledge,  and  which  can  be  expressed 
by  no  terms  in  use  among  men  so  properly,  as 
by  that  love  which  subsists  between  a  beloved 
Father,  and  an  only  Son.  And,  finally,  it  im- 
plies, that,  in  the  order  of  subsistence,  in  a 


V 


40  QUESTION  STATED. 

sense  also  analogous  to,  but  infinitely  above? 
what  takes  place  among  men?  the  Son  is  second 
to  the  Father ;  that  is  second  in  such  a  sense 
as  to  be  always  named?  when  a  systematick  ar- 
rangement of  the  Persons  is  intended?  in  the 
second  place  ; — second  in  order,  though  not  in 
perfection  or  in  time.  I  designate  the  relation 
which  these  divine  Persons  bear  to  each  other 
by  the  terms  begotten  and  generation,  because 
I  think  the  Holy  Spirit  uses  these  terms  to  ex- 
press that  relation :  and  because  these  are  the 
terms  used  for  expressing  that  relation  among 
men?  from  which  the  whole  of  this  language 
has  been  borrowed.  I  call  it  also?  without  scru- 
ple? eternal  generation,  because  the  relation 
which  it  designates  is  eternal ;  and  I  call  it  ne- 
cessary, because  I  do  not  suppose  that  it  is 
something  contingent,  or  that  it  might  have 
been  different  from  what  it  is;  but  that  it  could 
no  more  have  been  otherwise?  than  we  can  sup- 
pose it  possible  for  the  character  of  the  Most 
High  to  have  been  essentially  different  from 
that  which  is  revealed. 

I  contend  not?  then?  for  any  of  those  terms 
or  phrases?  which  systematick  writers  have 
been  wont  to  use  when  treating  of  this  subject. 
I  will  not  say  a  word  in  favour  of  eternal 
communication, — eternal    emanation, — eter- 


QUESTION  STATED.  41 

nal  procession  j — or  any  other  forms  of  expres- 
sion which  DSe'nes  have  been  fond  of  employ- 
ing in  their  attempts  to  illustrate  the  myste- 
rious doctrine  under  consideration ;  although  it 
ought  to  be  recolleeted  that  no  rational  advo- 
cate of  the  doctrine  ever  thought  of  applying 
these  terms  in  their  earthly  and  ordinary  sense.  ^ 
I  am  content,  however,  with  the  language  of 
the  Bible  in  relation  to  this  point ;  and  will 
give  as  little  trouble  as  possible,  by  attempting 
to  introduce  illustrations  of  human  devising. 

If  you  ask  me  to  explain  the  Scriptural  terms 
begotten,  generation,  &c.  when  used  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Son  of  God,  I  must  pause,  and  lay 
my  hand  on  my  mouth.  Who,  as  the  Prophet// 
asks —  Who  shall  declare  his  generation?  I  will 
only  once  more  say  that  I  protest  utterly  against 
attaching  to  the  terms  in  question,  any  of  those 
carnal  and  grovelling  ideas  which  the  same 
terms  excite  when  applied  to  the  affairs  of  men. 
It  is  certain  that  there  can  be  no  relation  of  fa- 
ther and  son  among  men,  without  implying 
both  derivation  and  posteriority  on  the  part  of 
the  latter :  but  I  should  consider  myself  as  in- 
dulging no  little  hardihood,  if  I  should  venture 
to  assert,  that  there  could  not  be  such  an  eter- 
nal relation  between  the  First  and  Second  Per- 
sons of  the  adorable  Trinity,  as  might  with 
2d 


42  QUESTION  STATED. 

more  propriety  be  expressed  by  the  terms 
Father  and  Son,  than  by  anj  /pther  terms  in 
the  language  of  mortals,  and  }et  not  involve 
the  least  degree  of  either  derivation  or  poste- 
riority  in  time.  No  one,  I  suppose,  ever 
thought  of  contending  for  the  literal  sense  of 
these  terms,  in  reference  to  the  Persons  of  the 
Trinity;  that  is  literal,  when  measured  by 
their  common,  earthly  sense.  Their  meaning, 
on  this  great  subject,  is  not  natural,  but  super- 
natural and  Divine,  and,  of  course,  beyond  the 
reach  of  our  minds.  I  would  say,  with  the  ve- 
nerable Ambrose,  a  pious  Father  of  the  fourth 
century,  when  speaking  on  this  subject — "  It 
"  is  impossible  for  me  to  know  the  mystery  of 
"  this  generation.  My  tongue  is  silent,  and  not 
"  mine  only,  but  the  tongues  of  angels.  It  is 
"  above  principalities,  above  angels,  above  the 
"  Cherubim,  above  the  Seraphim,  above  all 
"  understanding.  It  is  not  lawful  to  search 
"  into  these  heavenly  mysteries.  It  is  lawful  to 
"  know  that  he  was  born,  but  not  lawful  to 
u  examine  how  he  was  born.  The  former  I 
«  dare  not  deny :  the  latter  I  am  afraid  to  in- 
"  quire  into.  For  if  Paul,  when  he  was  taken 
"  up  into  the  third  heaven  affirms  that  the 
"  things  which  he  heard  could  not  be  uttered, 
"  how  can  we  express  the  mystery  of  the  Di- 


QUESTION  STATED.  43 

••'  vine  Generation,  which  we  can  neither  un- 
tf  derstand  nor  see  ?"* 

In  the  same  strain  speaks  the  learned  and 
pious  Basil — "  Thou  belie  vest  that  he  was  be- 
u  gotten?  Do  not  inquire  how.  For  as  it  is  in 
"  vain  to  inquire  how  he  that  is  unbegotten  is 
"  unbegotten ;  so  neither  ought  we  to  inquire 
"  how  He  that  is  begotten,  was  begotten. 
a  Seek  not  to  know  what  it  is  impossible  to 
"  find  out.  Believe  what  is  written  5  search  not 
"  into  what  is  not  written."! 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  which  I  profess  my 
belief,  and  which  it  is  my  object  in  this  corres- 
pondence to  maintain.  It  shall  be  my  endea- 
vour to  exhibit  my  reasons  for  believing  it  in 
the  following  Letters. 

*  fie  Fide,  ad  Gratiamim.  f  Homil  29. 


LETTER   III 


Testimony  of  Scripture. 


REFKREND  AND  DEAR  BROTHER, 

The  first  question  which  arises  with 
respect  to  the  subject  of  this  correspondence, 
is,  What  saith  the  Scripture  ?  It  is  first  in  im- 
portance, as  well  as  first  in  order.  In  fact,  all 
others  are  comparatively  trivial ;  for  I  still  ad- 
here to  the  opinion  expressed  in  my  "  Letters 
on  Unitarianism,"  that  "  that  which  is  not 
found  in  Scripture,  however  extensively  and 
unanimously  it  may  have  been  received  by 
those  who  bear  the  christian  name,  must  be  re- 
jected, as  forming  no  part  of  the  precious  sys- 
tem which  God  has  revealed  to  man  for  his  sal- 
vation." I  hope  I  am  truly  thankful  that  nei- 
ther the  Fathers,  nor  Tradition,  nor  the 
Church,  are  recognized  by  us  as  our  guide  in 
faith  or  practice.    To  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.     45 

mony,  then.  I  cheerfully  join  issue  with  you 
in  appealing  to  this  infallible  rule ;  and  sin- 
cerely rejoice  that  I  am  called  to  correspond 
with  a  Brother  whom  I  can  meet  in  this  field 
with  affection  and  confidence  as  on  common 
ground. 

In  entering  on  this  field  of  inquiry  I  need 
not  remark  to  you,  that  it  is  a  wide  one,  and 
that  a  volume  larger  than  that  to  which  I  pro- 
pose to  confine  myself  in  the  whole  correspon- 
dence, would  be  too  small  for  the  full  discus- 
sion of  this  branch  of  the  subject.  This  being 
obviously  the  case,  I  shall  allow  myself  to  se- 
lect and  urge  only  what  appear  to  me  the 
principal  topicks  of  testimony  and  argument. 
For,  on  the  one  hand,  if  these  should  not  be 
thought  conclusive,  it  is  not  likely  that  any  ad- 
dition to  their  number  would  be  more  favoura- 
bly regarded ;  and,  on  the  other,  if  they  should 
be  deemed  sufficient,  it  will  be  unnecessary 
further  to  multiply  particulars. 

I  propose,  in  the  first  place,  to  adduce  the 
leading  testimony  of  Scripture  in  favour  of  the 
eternal  Sonship  of  the  Saviour ;  and,  having 
done  this,  to  attempt  a  short  examination  of 
what  you  have  advanced  in  support  of  the  op- 
posite opinion. 

I   begin,   then,   with   those  considerations 


46     TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

drawn  from  the  Word  of  God,  which  have 
fully  satisfied  me  that  the  doctrine  of  the  eter- 
nal Sonship  of  the  Second  Person  of  the  Tri- 
nity is  a  doctrine  of  Christianity.  A  cursory 
view  of  these  will  occupy  the  whole  of  the 
present  Letter. 

But,  in  entering  on  this  part  of  my  task,  I 
am  met,  my  dear  Sir,  by  one  passage  in  your 
Letters,  which,  I  acknowledge,  fills  me  with 
despondency,  as  to  the  prospect  of  any  satis- 
factory result  from  any  effort  which  I  can 
make.  It  is  in  the  following  words — (p.  161.) 
"  Let  us  now  proceed  one  step  further.  On  the 
i'  supposition  that  there  are  passages  of  Scrip- 
"  ture  which  speak  of  the  Logos  as  eternally 
"  begotten  (which  you  seem  to  assert,  on  p. 
86.  but  which  I  find  not  in  the  Scriptures) 
"  would  it  of  course  follow,  that  a  real  and 
"proper  generation  was  intended  to  be  indi- 
"  cated,  as  Turretine,  Gerhard,  and  many 
*f  others  have  asserted  ?  I  think  not.  And  my 
"  reason  is,  that  the  nature  of  God,  as  a  self- 
"  existent,  independent,  and  immutable  Being, 
"  forbids  us  to  apply  such  an  exegesis ;  pro- 
"  vided  we  admit  that  the  Logos  is,  as  the 
"  Scriptures  assert,  supreme  God.  Derivation 
\  u  is  incompatible  with  these  predicates." — It 
seems,  then,  that  even  if  I  should  succeed  in 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  47 

producing  passages  of  Scripture  which  assert, 
ever  so  unequivocally,  the  doctrine  which  I 
maintain,  you  would,  nevertheless,  not  believe 
it ;  but  would  take  for  granted  that  the  words, 
whatever  their  apparent  import  might  be, 
meant  something  else  !  When  I  read  this  pa- 
ragraph, I  certainly  should  have  laid  down 
my  pen,  had  I  not  trusted  that  it  escaped  you 
in  an  unguarded  moment,  and  that  you  really 
did  not  mean  to  express  what  the  language  ap- 
pears to  me  to  import  Wherein  the  spirit  of 
it  differs  from  the  principle  of  interpretation 
avowed  and  acted  upon  by  our  Unitarian  neigh- 
bours, I  acknowledge  my  utter  inability  to  per- 
ceive. But  I  will  not  so  construe  it;  and  will 
proceed  with  the  same  fraternal  confidence  to 
adduce  my  Scriptural  testimony,  as  if  it  had 
never  been  written. 

I.  My  first  argument  in  favour  of  the  eternal 
Sonship  of  Christ,  is  drawn  from  the  correlate 
titles  of  Father  and  Son  which  are  confessedly 
applied  to  the  First  and  Second  Persons  in  the 
adorable  Trinity.  I  find,  as  I  think,  the  term 
Father  to  be  the  distinctive  title  given  to  the 
First  Person  of  the  Trinity  as  such  ;  and  that 
not  only  in  a  single  instance,  or  in  a  few  in- 
stances, but  throughout  the  New  Testament. 
This  is  evidently  the  highest  title  used  to  ex- 


i/- 


48  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

• 

press  the  Divine  and  eternal  character  of  the 
First  Person.  If  this  be  not  his  distinctive  and 
appropriate  appellation,  as  such,  I  should  be  at 
a  loss  to  say  what  that  appellation  is  ;  for  I  re- 
collect no  other  in  all  the  Bible.  Now  if  the 
peculiar  and  distinguishing  title  of  the  First 
Person  be  Father,  this  fact  furnishes,  in  my 
apprehension,  strong  presumptive  evidence, 
that  the  correlative  term,  Son,  is  the  distinc- 
tive title  of  the  Second  Person,  as  such.  The 
two  titles,  in  fact,  appear  to  call  for  each  other, 
and  to  be  inseparably  related.  Without  a  Son, 
there  can  be  no  Father ;  without  a  Father,  no 
Son.  If  the  term  Son  be  understood  to  desig- 
nate, not  the  Divine  and  eternal  character  of 
the  Second  Person,  but  an  official  character, 
commencing  in  time ;  then  prior  to  that  time, 
the  title  of  Father  did  not  properly  belong  to 
the  First  Person,  and,  of  course,  is  not  expres- 
sive of  his  character  as  a  Person  in  the  God- 
head. But  it  appears  to  me  perfectly  plain,  that 
the  title  Father  is  applied  to  the  First  Person, 
as  such,  and  is  intended  to  express  his  Divine 
and  eternal  character ;  and,  therefore,  I  infer 
with  equal  confidence,  that  the  title  Son  is  ap- 
plied to  the  Second  Person  as  such,  and  is, 
consequently,  in  like  manner,  intended  to  ex- 
press his  eternal  Divinity.  Upon  your  theory, 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  49 

what  reason  can  be  assigned  for  one  of  the  Per- 
sons being  uniformly  denominated  Father  ?  If 
the  three  Persons,  originally,  that  is  from  eter- 
nity, stood  in  precisely  the  same  relation  to 
each  other,  or,  in  other  words,  had  not  each 
some  peculiarity  on  the  score  of  relation,  I  do 
not  see  how  the  First  should  be  considered,  as 
he  constantly  is,  Father  to  the  Second,  rather 
than  to  the  Third.  This  argument  strikes  me 
with  so  much  force,  that,  I  acknowledge,  if 
there  were  no  other  to  be  found  in  scripture, 
it  would  satisfy  me  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
eternal  Sonship  is  a  doctrine  of  revelation. 

I  am  confirmed  in  my  estimate  of  the  strength 
and  value  of  this  argument,  by  observing  the 
manner  in  which  those  who  reject  the  eternal 
generation  of  the  Son,  escape  from  its  force. 
They  are  compelled  to  deny  that  the  term  Fa- 
ther is  the  appropriate  title  of  the  First  Person, 
as  such :  and  are  ultimately  driven  to  this  con- 
clusion, that  the  First  Person  has  no  appro- 
pi*iate  title  as  such.  But  if  the  First  Person  has 
no  appropriate  title,  how  are  we  to  know  him, 
or  speak  of  him  in  his  appropriate  character  ? 
Nay,  how  can  it  be  shewn  that  he  is  revealed 
to  us  at  all  in  that  character  ?  Truly,  my  dear 
Brother,  the  more  I  trace  reasonings  of  this 
kind  to  their  results,  the  more  I  recoil,  with  a 

E 


50     TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

kind  of  shuddering,  from  what  appears  to  me 
their  tendency  to  unsettle  the  most  established 
language  and  truths  of  our  blessed  religion. 

You  observe,  that  the  title  Father,  when  applied 
to  the  First  Person,  may  mean  to  express  no  more 
than  his  relation  to  his  creatures,  as  their  Crea- 
tor, Protector,  and  common  Parent,  and  also  to 
the  Messiah,  as  miraculously  conceived  and  ex- 
alted to  the  throne.  But  if  this  be  so,  then  we 
have,  in  one  of  the  most  solemn  ordinances  of  our 
religion,  the  ordinance  of  Baptism,  a  solemn  in- 
vocation, which  christians  have,  generally,  in  all 
ages,  supposed  to  be  expressive  of  the  holy  and 
undivided  Trinity,  as  such ;  but  which,  accord- 
ing to  this  hypothesis,  is  expressive,  not  of 
eternal  and  essential  character,  but  of  poste- 
rior and  subordinate  relations.  For  after  a 
while  we  learn,  that  you  doubt,  too,  whether 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  an  appropriate  title  in 
scripture,  expressive  of  his  Divine  and  eternal 
character,  as  the  Third  Person  in  the  Trinity. 
Is  this  really  so  ?  One  great  source  of  my  re- 
verence and  pleasure  in  administering  the  or- 
dinance of  Baptism  to  others,  and  in  receiving 
it  for  my  own  beloved  offspring,  has  always 
been,  that,  in  repeating  the  form  prescribed 
by  the  Saviour,  I  supposed  I  was  repeating  ap- 
propriate titles,  expressive  of  the  Persons  of 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  51 

the  Tri-une  God,  in  their  divine  and  eternal 
relations.  Have  I  been  always  labouring  under 
a  mistake  ?  Have  the  impressions  and  the  lan- 
guage of  the  great  body  of  christians,  for 
nearly  two  thousand  years,  been  altogether  er- 
roneous ?  Are  there  no  titles  by  which  the  be- 
liever can  draw  near  to  his  covenant  God,  as 
such,  and  in  the  same  Divine  and  eternal  cha- 
racter in  which  the  everlasting  counsels  of 
peace  were  formed  ? 

Besides;  does  not  the  Scripture  represent 
the  Son  of  God  as  bearing  an  equally  near 
relation  to  the  creatures,  as  their  Maker, 
Preserver,  and  Benefactor,  as  the  Father? 
He  made  the  worlds.  By  him  every  thing 
teas  made  that  was  made.  He  upholds 
all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power.  Ml 
power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is  committed  to 
him.  So  that  if  either  Person  is  peculiarly  en- 
titled to  the  name  of  Father,  on  the  score  of 
creation  and  providence,  it  is  rather  the  Second 
than  the  First.  As  little  reason  is  there  for 
calling  the  Father  by  this  name,  on  account  of 
the  generation  of  the  human  nature  of  the  Son 
in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  ;  for  that  was,  in  a 
peculiar  sense,  the  act  of  the  Holy- Ghost.  In 
short,  the  title  of  Father  cannot,  I  think*  be 
applied  to  the  First  Person  of  the  Trinity  on 


52  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C 

account  of  any  of  his  works  in  time ;  works 
cither  of  creation  or  providence,  of  nature  or  of 
grace ;  for  in  all  these  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit 
are  undoubtedly  represented  every  where  in 
Scripture  as  equal  agents. 

I  acknowledge,  too,  my  dear  Sir,  I  am  quite 
as  little  satisfied  with  another  remark  which 
you  make  in  relation  to  this  point.  You  say, 
with  a  view  to  obviate  some  of  the  difficulties 
before  stated,  that  you  consider  the  terms  Fa- 
ther, Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  as  intended  merely 
to  designate  the  distinctions  of  the  Godhead, 
as  manifested  to  us  in  the  economy  of  redemp- 
tion, and  not  as  intended  to  mark  the  eternal 
relations  of  the  Godhead,  as  they  are  in  them- 
selves, and  in  respect  to  each  other.  I  have  al- 
ways supposed  that  the  principal  object  of  the 
economy  of  redemption  was  to  glorify  the 
tri-une  God,  by  manifesting  the  appropriate 
and  eternal  distinctions  of  the  Godhead;  by 
shewing  the  true  glory  of  God,  as  he  is  in  him- 
self, more  illustriously  than  it  ever  was  or  can 
Nbe  exhibited  in  any  other  way.  The  Scriptures 
appear  to  me  clearly  to  teach  this ;  nay,  to  in- 
timate that  all  the  principalities  and  powers 
in  heavenly  places,  will  learn  from  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  church  the  manifold  glories  of  Je- 
hovah. But,  if  your  supposition  be  correct,  I  do 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.     53 

not  see  why  something  much  inferior  to  this  may 
not  prove  to  be  the  object  of  that  great  work. 
In  other  words,  that  the  work  of  Redemption, 
instead  of  being  designed  to  display  the  cha- 
racter of  God,  in  his  essential  and  everlasting 
glories ;  was  merely  intended  to  display  his  re- 
lations to  a  single  inferior  race  of  creatures. 
Am  I  in  an  error  in  supposing  that  this  would 
follow  ?  I  can  truly  say,  that  in  suggesting  it, 
I  state  nothing  but  what  appears  to  me  a  legi- 
timate inference  from  your  premises. 

On  the  whole,  then,  the  more  I  contemplate 
the  consequences  of  other  schemes,  with  the 
deeper  conviction  do  I  return  to  the  position 
with  which  I  set  out.  If  the  title  Father,  be  the 
appropriate  title  of  the  First  Person  of  the 
blessed  Trinity,  as  such,  and  expressive  of  his 
Divine  and  eternal  character,  as  I  firmly  be- 
lieve ;  and  if  an  eternal  Father  necessarily  sup- 
poses an  eternal  Son,  as  I  must  think  it  does ; 
then  it  unavoidably  follows,  that  the  Second 
Person  of  the  Trinity  is  Son,  as  such,  and 
consequently  that  his  Sonship  is  Divine  and 
eternal. 

II.  The  manner  in  which  the  phrase  Son  of 

God,  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  especially 

when  taken  in  connection  with  the  sense  in 

\vhi«h  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  phrase 

e  2 


54  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C 

was  popularly  understood,  under  the  Old  Tes- 
tament economy,  appears  to  me  strongly  to 
establish  the  same  truth. 

You  confess,  my  dear  Sir,  after  all  the  ex- 
amples which  you  adduce  of  the  diversified  ap- 
plication of  the  phrases,  Son  of  God,  and  sons 
of  God — you  confess,  that  there  is  an  appro- 
priate and  exalted  sense  in  which  the  phrase 
in  question  is  applied  to  our  blessed  Saviour. 
Some  examples  of  this  you  have  specified. 
Others,  and  I  think  stronger  than  any  you  have 
selected,  might  have  been  mentioned.  I  shall 
content  myself  with  quoting  a  very  few,  for  the 
purpose  of  at  once  illustrating  and  enforcing 
the  argument  drawn  from  this  title. 

Matthew  xxviii.  19.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  John  iii.  16.  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  £fc. 
John  i.  14,  18.  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh, 
and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory, 
the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father, 
full  of  grace  and  truth.  No  man  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time  ;  the  only  begotten  Son,  who 
is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared 
him.  John  v.  22,  23,  25.  The  Father  judgeth 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.     55 

no  man,  but  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto 
the  Son :  that  all  men  should  honour  the  Son 
even  as  they  honour  the  Father.  What  things 
soever  the  Father  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the 
Son  likewise.  The  dead  shall  hear  the  voice 
of  the  Son  of  God  and  live.  For  as  the  Fa- 
ther hath  life  in  himself  so  hath  he  given  the 
Son  to  have  life  in  himself.  John  x.  30.  land 
my  Father  are  one.  John  xvii.  1.  5.  Father, 
glorify  thy  Son,  that  thy  Son  also  may  glorify 
thee.  And  now,  0  Father,  glorify  thou  me 
with  thine  own  self  with  the  glory  which 

I     HAD    WITH    THEE    BEFORE    THE     WORLD 

was.  Hebrews  i.  1,  2,  3,  8.  10.  God,  who 
at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  manners,  spake 
in  time  past  unto  the  Fathers  by  the  prophets, 
hath,in  these  last days,  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son, 
by  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds  ;  who  being 
the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  express 
image  of  his  Person,  and  upholding  all  things 
by  the  word  of  his  power,  when  he  had  by  him- 
self purged  our  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  Majesty  on  high.  For  unto  which  of 
the  angels  said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art  my 
Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.  But  unto 
the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  ia 
for  ever  and  ever,  a  sceptre  of  righteous" 
ness  is  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom.  And  thou, 


56     TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  earth  ;  and  the  hea- 
vens are  the  works  of  thine  hands.  Hebrews 
v.  8.  Though  he  were  a  Son,  yet  learned  he 
obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered.  1 
John  iii.  8.  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God 
was  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the 
works  of  the  devil  1  John  v.  20.  And  we 
know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath 
given  us  an  understanding  that  we  may  know 
him  that  is  true  ;  and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true, 
even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the 
true  God,  and  eternal  life. 

Some  of  these  passages  will  be  more  particu- 
larly considered  in  detail  afterwards.  In  the 
mean  time,  I  will  say  of  them,  in  general,  that 
they  appear  to  me  clearly  to  teach,  that  the 
Son  is  equal  with  the  Father,  and  entitled,  as 
such,  to  equal  honours : — That  the  Son,  as  the 
Son,  had  a  glory  luith  the  Father  before  the 
world  began: — That  the  Son,  as  such,  was  the 
Creator  of  the  world: — That,  as  Son,  he  is 
God  : — That,  as  Son,  he  was  the  object  of 
most  peculiar  and  endeared  affection  on  the 
part  of  the  Father  before  the  world  was ;  and 
that,  therefore,  not  sparing  him  to  come  on 
such  an  errand,  was  an  instance  of  unparalleled 
condescension  and  love : — That  he  did  not  be- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.     57 

come  Son,  in  consequence  of  the  official  honours 
which  were  conferred  upon  him ;  but  that  he 
was  entitled  to  these  honours,  and  qualified  to 
sustain  them,  because  he  was,  previously,  the 
Son  of  God. — In  short,  these,  and  a  number  of 
other  passages  which  speak  of  the  glory  of  the 
Son  of  God,  appear  to  me  to  be  among  the  very 
strongest  in  all  the  New  Testament  for  main- 
taining the  essential  and  eternal  Divinity  of 
the  Second  Person  in  the  Godhead;  and  I  can- 
not divest  myself  of  the  impression,  that  every 
argument  which  is  employed  to  show  that  the 
Sonship  of  the  Saviour  is  not  Divine  and  eter- 
nal, so  far  as  it  prevails,  must,  in  the  same  pro- 
portion, undermine  the  evidence  of  the  Sa- 
viour's Divinity. 

The  view  which  I  have  taken  of  the  force 
of  these  passages,  seems  to  be  strongly  con- 
firmed, by  adverting  to  that  sense  which  is 
known  to  have  been  attached  to  the  phrase 
Son  of  God,  by  the  Jews  of  that  age,  and  of 
the  preceding  times. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  expression,  Son  of 
God,  was  habitually  used  by  our  Saviour,  and 
his  Apostles,  as  well  as  by  those  who  conversed 
with  them,  whether  friends  or  adversaries, 
without  stopping  to  explain  it ;  with  the  fa- 
miliarity of  persons  who  knew  that  they  were 


58  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

employing  a  common  and  well  understood  title. 
Now,  on  the  supposition  that  this  was  a  new 
title,  which  the  Jews  of  that  age  were  not  ac- 
customed to  employ,  the  fact  that  it  was  thus 
frequently  employed,  without  explanation,  is 
wholly  unaccountable.  But,  on  the  supposition 
that  it  had  been  long  in  use  among  them,  in  a 
particular  and  well  known  sense;  then  the 
manner  in  which  it  is  used  by  the  Saviour  and 
his  disciples  is  perfectly  natural.  The  Jewish 
rulers  appeared  to  be  perfectly  familiar  with 
the  expression,  and  at  no  loss  to  affix  a  definite 
meaning  to  it.  When  Nathaniel  saw  Christ 
for  the  first  time  approaching  him,  he  cried 
out — Rabbi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  thou 
art  the  King  of  Israel!  And  when  the  Cen- 
turion, watching  the  cross,  heard  the  earth- 
quake, and  saw  the  things  which  were  done, 
he  exclaimed,  Truly  this  was  the  Son  of  God! 
We  can  hardly  suppose  that  these  were  mere 
unmeaning  or  accidental  effusions.  There  is 
every  appearance  of  language  employed  in 
conformity  with  a  fixed  popular  habit. 

The  question,  then,  is,  whether  there  is  any 
evidence  that  the  title,  Son  of  God,  was  ac- 
tually in  familiar  use  among  the  Jews  at  the 
time  of  our  Lord's  advent,  in  reference  to  the 
Messiah  5  and  if  so,  in  what  sense  it  was  em- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  59 

ployed  ?    And  in  answer  to  these  questions,  I 
do  consider  it  as  conclusively  and  satisfactorily 
shewn,  by  Dr.  Mlix,  in  his  Judgment  of  the 
Jewish  Church;  by  Morcenus,  in  the  sixth 
chapter  of  his  work  De  Veritate  Heligionis 
Christianas ;  by   Gale,  in  his  Court  of  the 
Gentiles;  by  Cudworth,  in  his  Intellectual 
System;  by  Bishop  Kidder,  in  his  Demonstra- 
tion of  the  Messias,  and  by  other  learned  men, 
that,  at  the  time  of  our  Lord's  appearance  in 
the  flesh,  the  titles,  Son  of  God,  and  Logos, 
or  Word  of  God,  were  in  common  use  among 
the  Jews,  and  had  been  so  for  a  number  of  cen- 
turies ;  and  further,  that  both  these  titles  were 
considered  as  interchangeably  applicable   to 
the  same  Person,  and  both  equally  implying  a 
proper  eternity  and  Divinity.    The  examples 
of  this  produced  by  the  distinguished  writers 
just  mentioned,  as  well  as  frequently  occurring 
in  Philo,  a  learned  Jew,  contemporary  with 
our  Saviour,  I  must  consider  as  precluding  all 
doubt  of  the  fact,  that  the  Son  of  God  was  re- 
garded by  them  as  a  Person  in  the  Trinity, 
and  as  co-equal  and  co- eternal  with  the  Father. 
And  if  this  be  so,  it  must,  I  think,  be  consi- 
dered by  all  impartial  people,  as  pouring  a 
flood  of  light  on  the  import  of  this  term  as  it 
is  used  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  also  as  de- 


60  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C 

ciding  beyond  controversy,  that  it  was  used  iu 
a  similar  sense,  and  was  so  intended  to  be  un- 
derstood, by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles. 

But  if  the  title,  Son  of  God,  was  in  familiar 
use  among  the  Jews,  during  our  Lord's  ministry 
on  earth,  as  a  name  of  the  expected  Messiah, 
which  I  consider  myself  as  having  a  right  to 
assume;  I  ask,  what  could  have  been  the 
ground  of  this  title  in  their  minds  ?  Surely 
neither  his  miraculous  conception,  nor  his  ex- 
traordinary resurrection  from  the  dead,  in 
neither  of  which  they  believed,  and  of  which 
one  had  not  yet  occurred.  It  was  evidently 
something  independent  of  both,  and  prior  to 
both. 

Accordingly,  when  the  Saviour  appro- 
priated to  himself  the  title  Son  of  God,  the 
Jews  accused  him  of  thereby  making  himself 
equal  with  God.  I  will  not  here  stop  to  in- 
quire, whether  the  inference,  that  taking  this 
title  was  making  himself  equal  with  God,  is 
to  be  understood  as  drawn  by  the  inspired  his- 
torian, or  by  the  cavilling  Jews.  I  am  content 
to  receive  it  as  the  latter.  They  evidently  un- 
derstood the  title,  then,  precisely  in  conformity 
with  what  the  writers  above  mentioned  have 
proved  to  have  been  the  sense  of  it  popularly 
received.    I  do  not  forget,  my  dear  Sir,  that 


! 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  61 

you  deny  that  the  Jews,  on  the  occasions  re- 
ferred to,  did  understand  our  Lord  as  taking 
a  title  which  in  itself  implied  Divinity.  But  I 
cannot  agree  to  your  interpretation,  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons. 

(1.)  If  the  popular  sense  of  Son,  as  applied 
to  the  Messiah,  was  expressive  of  his  Di- 
vine and  eternal  nature,  it  is  most  natural  to 
suppose  that  the  Jews  understood  him  in  that 
sense. 

(2.)  If  our  Lord  meant  to  give  such  an  ex- 
planation of  the  title  Son  of  God,  as  to  shew 
the  Jews  that  it  did  not  necessarily  imply  Di- 
vinity, and,  of  course,  that  he  had  not  heen 
guilty  of  blasphemy  in  assuming  it;  it  had  been 
easy  to  do  so  in  a  single  sentence ;  but  if  this 
was  his  aim,  it  is  evident  that  he  succeeded 
very  ill  in  silencing  their  cavils,  and  satisfying 
their  minds;  for  if  we  compare  John  v.  17 — 
30,  with  John  x.  22 — 40,  after  all  his  explana- 
tion, they  were  still  as  much  exasperated  as 
before,  and  seemed  to  abate  nothing  of  their 
horror  at  the  fancied  presumptuousness  of  his 
claim.  To  which  I  add — 

(3.)  That  if  the  explanation  which  Christ 
ives  of  his  claim  be  attentively  considered,  in 
all  its  parts,  it  fully  and  necessarily  amounts  to 
all  that  the  Jews  alledged.    He  does  not  tell 

F 


62     TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

them  that  he  is  not  God,  or  that  he  does  not 
make  himself  equal  with  God;  which  he  would, 
no  doubt,  have  done,  if  it  had  been  consistent 
with  truth  and  justice,  in  order  to  repel  so  se- 
rious a  charge  as  that  of  blasphemy.  On  the 
contrary,  instead  of  relinquishing  his  claim  of 
Divine  character,  he  rather  confirms  and  ex- 
tends it ;  representing  the  honours  and  works 
of  the  Son  to  be  such  as  belong  to  Divinity 
only,  and  the  same,  in  all  respects,  as  those 
which  belong  to  the  Father.  My  impression, 
then,  is  that  he  did  advance  claims  to  his  most 
exalted  character,  before  the  Jews,  and  the  re- 
sult appears  to  me  to  confirm  my  impression. 
If  the  Son,  as  such,  be  one  with  the  Father; — 
if,  as  such,  he  is  to  be  honoured  equally  with 
the  Father; — if,  as  such,  he  is  to  raise  the 
dead j  and  judge  the  world  ; — the  inference  is 
irresistible,  that  his  Sonship  is  Divine  and 
eternal. 

HI.  I  attach  no  small  importance  to  those 
passages  of  Scripture,  which  represent  the  Fa- 
ther as  NOT  SPARING    HIS   SON  ; GIVING    HIS 

Son  5 — sending  forth  his  Son,  &c.  Of  this 
class  of  Scriptures,  I  will  oifer  only  the  follow- 
ing specimen.  John  iii.  16.  God  so  loved  the 
ivorld,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  63 

but  have  everlasting  life.  Romans  viii.  3.  32. 
God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of 
sinful  flesh;  and  for  sin  condemned  sin  in  the 
flesh.  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but 
delivered  him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall  he  not 
with  him  also,  fyc.  ?  Galatians  iv.  4.  When 
the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  God  sent 
forth  his  Son  made  of  a  woman,  made  under 
the  law.  1  John  iii.  8.  For  this  purpose  the 
Son  of  God  was  manifested,  that  he  might  de- 
stroy the  ivorks  of  the  devil.  1  John  v.  20. 
And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  fyc. 
Now  the  argument  which  the  friends  of  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  generation  have  long  been 
in  the  habit  of  drawing  from  such  passages,  is 
this — If  the  Son  of  God  was  not  spared,  was 
given,  was  sent  forth ;  these  expressions  plainly 
imply  that  the  Father  had  a  Son  to  send; 
and  of  course,  that  he  was  Son  before  he  was 
given,  before  he  was  sent  forth,  before  he 
was  manifested.  If  his  Sonship  were  founded 
on  his  incarnation,  or  his  investiture  with 
the  Mediatorial  office,  then  it  would  have 
been  more  strictly  proper  to  say,  that  God 
sent  forth  the  Mediator  that  he  might  be- 
come  his  Son.  But  we  find  no  such  expres- 
sion in  the  New  Testament.    If  any  one  were 


64     TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

to  say,  that  a  physician,  or  a  clergyman,  or  a 
nobleman  was  sent  to  a  distant  country  on  some 
important  business,  would  not  every  one  na- 
turally understand  him  to  mean,  that  the  indi- 
vidual sent  had  sustained  the  profession,  or 
borne  the  office  ascribed  to  him  previously  to 
his  mission  ?  Undoubtedly  such  would  be  the 
only  natural  and  legitimate  meaning  of  the  de- 
claration. Surely,  then,  the  obvious  meaning 
of  all  such  passages  as  are  quoted  above  is,  that 
the  Son  of  God  was  Son,  before  he  was  given, 
and  that  it  wTas  in  the  character  of  Son  that  he 
was  sent  forth. 

You  recognize  this  argument  as  a  plausible 
one,  and  acknowledge  that  it  is  likely,  more 
than  most  others  on  my  side  of  the  question, 
to  make  a  popular  impression.  Yet  you  think 
it  of  no  real  force.  I  am  not  at  all  convinced 
by  the  reasonings  which  you  employ  to  shew 
that  this  is  the  case.  You  say,  (p.  141.)  "One 
"  general  objection  lies  against  interpreting 
"  any  of  these  texts  in  the  manner  described ; 
"  for  if  filiation  be  understood  of  the  Logos 
"  himself,  it  would  imply,  of  course,  that  he 
"  had  been  twice  Son; — Son  in  his  Divine  na- 
"  ture,  and  Son  in  his  human  nature:  a  doctrine 
"  which,  though  believed  by  some  of  the  Fa- 
*'  thers,  and  advocated  in  this  form,  is  not,  so 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  65 

"  far  as  I  can  perceive,  taught  in  any  part  of 
"  the  Bible." — The  force,  or  even  the  ground 
of  this  objection,  I  confess,  is  not  apparent  to 
my  mind.  I  know  of  no  advocates  of  the  doc- 
trine of  eternal  generation  who  hold  or  admit 
that  Christ  was  twice  Son.  They  believe,  if  I 
understand  them,  at  least  I  believe,  that  the 
Sonship  of  Christ  is  one  only ;  that  it  consists 
in  his  eternal  relation  to  the  Father.  I  believe 
that  this  Son  was  sent  forth,  given,  mani- 
fested; but  not  twice  born,  as  the  Son  of  God. 
Nor  am  I  able  to  see  how  this  opinion  exposes 
me,  in  the  remotest  degree,  to  the  charge  of 
maintaining  "  two  literal  filiations." 

You  are  undoubtedly  correct  in  saying,  that 
some  of  the  Fathers  did  speak  of  two  filiations  ; 
one  from  eternity,  and  one  in  time.  But  if  I 
comprehend  the  meaning  of  the  most  of  those 
who  speak  thus,  they  intend  to  convey  no  ideas 
materially,  if  at  all,  different  from  what  I  have 
just  stated.  They  give  the  name  of  generation, 
indeed,  to  the  Saviour's  coming  forth  at  the 
creation,  and  to  his  birth  of  the  Virgin ;  but, 
in  general,  they  seem  to  me  to  mean  nothing 
more  by  this  expression  than  manifestation, 
or  appearing  to  men,  or  coming  forth  to  act. 
But  I  propose  to  consider  this  more  fully  in  a 
subsequent  Letter. 

f  2 


66  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

Nor  am  I  at  all  more  forcibly  impressed  with 
the  other  suggestions  which  you  make  for  the 
purpose  of  repelling  this  argument.  You  say 
(p.  143.)  that  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
'modes  of  expression  referred  to,— coming  into 
the  world — sent  into  the  world — "  are  often 
"  used  in  the  sense  of  entering  upon  the  duties 
"  of  any  publick  office."  And  you  exemplify 
your  meaning  by  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist. 
There  was  a  man  sent  from  God.  Here  you 
appear  to  me  to  have  entirely  lost  sight  of  the 
point  of  the  argument.  This  case  of  John 
-serves  my  purpose  admirably.  There  was  a 
man  sent  from  God.  Was  he  not  a  man 
before  he  was  sent  forth ?  Or  did  he  become 
a  man — was  he  constituted  a  man,  by  entering 
on  the  duties  of  his  publick  office  ?  Your  other 
example,  from  "  Rabinnick  usage,"  answers 
my  purpose  just  as  well.  "  The  master  has 
**  come"  you  say,  means,  according  to  that 
usage,  that  the  Master  teaches  or  is  teaching* 
But  this,  surely,  does  not  imply  that  he  is  not 
a  master  or  a  teacher  previously  to  his  entering 
the  apartment  in  which  his  pupils  convene,  for 
the  purpose  of  being  taught ;  or  that  it  is  by  the 
act  of  teaching  that  his  character  as  such  is 
constituted.  If  you  were  to  be  told  that  a  So- 
ciety in  the  United  States  had  sent  a  well 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  67 

qualified  and  experienced  teacher  of  languages 
or  of  science  to  India,  would  you  not  suppose 
that  he  had  borne  this  character  before  he 
went?  or,  would  you  rather  suppose  that  his 
mission  created  this  character?  Unless  you  can 
suppose  the  latter,  I  must  believe  that  all  the 
examples  which  you  draw  from  the  Scriptures 
or  from  "  Rabinnick  usage, "  make,  most  deci- 
sively for  my  doctrine,  and  not  for  yourlf. 

IV.  Another  consideration  drawn  from 
Scripture,  I  acknowledge,  weighs  very  strongly 
with  me  in  favour  of  the  Divine  and  eternal 
Sonship  for  which  I  plead.  Throughout  the 
New  Testament,  great  stress  is  laid  on  the 
Fathers'  wonderful  condescension  and  love,  in 
not  sparing  his  Son,  his  only  Son,  his  well  be- 
loved Son,  who  dwelt  in  his  bosom,  but  in  de- 
livering him  up  to  humiliation,  sufferings  and 
death.  The  inspired  writers  represent  the 
salvation  of  man,  purchased,  as  they  declare, 
by  this  stupendous  sacrifice,  as  a  most  amazing, 
incomprehensible  instance  of  mercy  and  grace. 
They  represent  this  gift  as  expressive  of  a 
love  passing  all  knowledge,  which  the  Angels 
desire  to  look  into,  but  which  transcends  in  its 
wonderful  character  even  the  grasp  of  their 
exalted  minds.  They  tell  us,  in  language  be- 
fore quoted,  that  God  so  loved  the  world?  that 


68  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

He  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  on  him,  should  not  perish,  but 
have  everlasting  life.  That  in  this  the  love 
of  God  was  manifested  towards  us,  because 
that  God  sent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the 
world,  that  we  might  live  through  him.  The 
Saviour  himself  also,  in  Mark  xii.  6.  in  the 
parable  of  the  vineyard,  very  strongly  con- 
veys the  same  idea.  Having  yet,  therefore, 
one  Son,  his  well  beloved,  He  sent  Him 
also  last  unto  them,  saying,  They  will  reve- 
rence my  Son,  §c.  And  in  the  view  of  this 
unspeakable  Gift,  it  is  said,  Herein  is  love, 
not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  He  loved  us, 
and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins  ! 

In  all  these  passages,  it  seems  to  be  implied, 
if  I  can  construe  language,  not  only  that  the 
Father  had  a  Son,  before  he  was  sent,  who 
was  infinitely  beloved,  but  that  in  the  original 
counsel  and  determination  to  send  this  glorious 
Personage  to  be  the  Saviour  of  sinners,  there 
was  a  real  and  immeasurable  exercise,  if  I  may 
so  speak,  of  paternal  feeling,  put  to  an  un- 
paralleled test,  and  exercised  to  an  extent  in- 
comprehensible by  creatures.  Whether  this 
is  not  the  spirit  of  the  inspired  representation,, 
I  appeal  to  the  most  cursory  reader. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  69 

Now,  on  the  supposition,  that  the  Second 
Person  of  the  adorable  Trinity,  who  became 
incarnate  for  our  salvation,  is  really,  literally, 
and  essentially,  though  mysteriously,  the  eter- 
nal Son  of  God.  Supposing  that  He  does 
truly  bear  this  close,  endearing,  and  ineffable 
relation  to  the  Father.  That  is,  supposing  that 
He  is  truly  and  eternally  related  to  the  eternal 
Father  in  a  manner  analogous  to  the  relation 
between  father  and  son  among  men,  and  there- 
fore most  fitly  represented  by  terms  drawn 
from  that  relation,  but  incomprehensibly  above 
it  in  glory;  then  these  representations  are 
just,  forcible,  as  full  of  beauty  and  tenderness, 
as  of  truth,  and  will  meet  a  grateful  response 
in  the  heart  of  every  believer,  and  especially 
of  every  believer  who  is  a  parent.  And  I 
cannot  but  persuade  myself  that,  from  the  fre- 
quency, the  particularity,  and  the  peculiar 
emphasis  with  which  this  consideration  is  dwelt 
upon,  not  only  in  one  or  a  few  passages  of 
of  Scripture,  but  in  passages  innumerable,  it 
was  intended  to  make  a  deep  impression  on 
the  minds  of  all,  but  especially  on  the  parents' 
heart. 

We  are  told,  however,  that  all  this  is  mere 
fancy.  That  between  the  First  and  Second 
Persons  in  the  Trinity  there  never  was  any 


70  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

paternal  relation  or  feeling  whatever.  And, 
of  course,  that  in  the  determination  to  send 
the  Second  Person  into  our  world,  incarnate 
in  human  nature,  there  were  no  paternal  feel- 
ings either  put  to  the  test  or  exercised.  But, 
on  this  supposition  ;  on  the  supposition,  that 
the  Sonship  of  Christ  so  emphatically  spoken 
of,  is  rather  metaphorical  than  real:  if  it  is 
not  grounded  on  any  Divine  and  eternal  rela- 
tion to  the  Father,  but  on  the  office  itself  in 
which  He  came  to  seek  and  to  save  sinners : 
if  He  was  not  a  Son  at  all  before  He  came, 
but  merely  had  a  Sonship  constituted  or  origi- 
nated by  the  act  of  coming:  if  the  Second 
Person  of  the  Trinity,  who  was  eternally  with 
the  Father,  but,  as  such,  was  not  a  Son,  nor, 
in  this  character,  the  emphatically  well  beloved, 
who  ivas  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  and  ac- 
quired a  title  to  this  language  only  by  taking 
on  himself  an  inferior  nature,  even  the  nature 
of  sinful  man  :  if,  in  short,  the  Sonship  which 
is  made  the  ground  of  such  frequent  and 
solemn  appeal,  has  nothing  more  of  the  charac- 
ter of  real  Sonship  on  the  one  hand,  or  of  the 
feelings  of  paternity,  (if  I  may  be  allowed  so 
to  speak)  on  the  other,  than  what  is  constituted 
by  events  subsequent  to  .this  great,  inconceiva- 
ble act  of  love  implied  in  the  original  deter- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  71 

urination  to  give  the  Son;  then  I  must  say, 
that  the  whole  aspect  of  the  representation 
appears  to  me  strange  and  unaccountable  to 
the  last  degree  !  Nay,  (with  reverence  I  would 
write  it)  if  this  were  all  that  was  intended  by 
the  Sonship  so  much  and  so  strongly  insisted 
upon  in  the  passages  above  alluded  to,  as  an 
object  of  wonder,  gratitude  and  praise ;  I 
should  say,  it  was  little  less  than  practising  an 
imposition  on  the  understandings  of  those  ad- 
dressed ;  little  less  than  attempting  to  impress 
them  with  figure,  and  even  bombast,  rather 
than  precious  reality.  In  a  word,  in  this  case, 
all  our  ideas  of  the  peculiar  and  ineffable  ten- 
derness and  love  of  the  Father,  in  giving  up 
his  Son  to  humiliation  and  suffering  for  sin- 
ners, would  be,  so  far  as  my  feelings  can  in- 
struct me  on  the  subject,  not  only  essentially 
diminished,  but  made  in  a  great  measure  to 
vanish  away.  But  I  cannot,  for  a  moment, 
admit  a  principle  which  leads  me  to  such  a 
conclusion. 

V.  Further;  the  manner  in  which  the 
penmen  of  the  New  Testament  speak  of  the 
incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  convinces 

e  that  that  Sonship  is  Divine  and  eternal. 

nd  this  conviction  is  decisively  fortified  by 
comparing  this  language  with  that  used,   in 


72  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

other  places,  to  express  the  incarnation  of  the 
Logos,  the  divine  and  eternal  existence  of 
whom,  you  acknowledge,  admits  of  no  douht. 
One  inspired  apostle  tells  us,  that  God  was 
manifested  in  the  flesh.  Another  inspired 
apostle  declares,  that  the  Word  was  made 
flesh  and  dwelt  among  us.  Again,  we  are 
told,  that  God  sent  forth  his  own  Son  in  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh.  And  again,  that  the 
Son  of  God  ivas  manifested  that  He  might  de- 
stroy the  works  of  the  devil.  How  remarkably 
similar  these  modes  of  expression !  God  was 
manifested  in  the  flesh — the  Word  was  made 
flesh — the  Son  was  manifested — was  sent  forth 
in  the  likeness  of  flesh.  Judging  from  these 
passages,  are  not  God,  the  Word,  and  the  Son 
the  very  same  ?  The  two  former  you  acknow- 
ledge express  Divinity ;  and  why  not  the 
latter  ?  If  the  Divinity  of  the  Second  Person 
existed,  underived  and  glorious  before  He  was 
manifested  in  the  flesh;  and  if  the  Word  was 
with  God,  and  was  God,  before  He  was  made 
flesh,  every  consideration  drawn  from  simila- 
rity of  expression  would  lead  us  to  suppose, 
that  the  Son  also,  was  Son  in  a  high  and  in- 
comprehensible sense,  before  He  was  sent 
forth  in  the  likeness  of  flesh,  and  that  his  in- 
effable Sonship  was  not  the  result,  but  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  73 

foundation  of  his  appointment  to  the  office  of 
Redeemer,  and  one  of  his  essential  qualifica- 
tions for  discharging  the  duties  of  that  office. 
VI.  Again ;  the  titles,  and  the  representa- 
tion of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  given  in  the 
New  Testament,  appear  to  have  been  intended 
to  express  relation  to  each  other,  as  well 
as  co-eternity  and  co-equality.  The  Second 
Person  is  represented  as  mysteriously  "be- 
gotten"— eternally  begotten  of  the  First, 
and  the  Third  as  "proceeding  "  in  a  high  and 
incomprehensible  manner,  from  the  First  and 
Second.  Hence  the  Holy  Ghost  is  called  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the 
Father  ;  John  xv.  26.  Again,  he  is  called  the 
Spirit  of  the  Son, — Gal.  iv.  6.  And  the  Son 
promises  to  send  him,  and  he  is  said  to  be  ac- 
tually sent  of  the  Son.  John  xv.  26,  and  xvi.  7. 
Accordingly,  this  has  been  the  uniform  belief 
of  the  great  body  of  Christians,  Catholick  and 
Protestant,  for  many  centuries.  This  doctrine 
is  incorporated  in  all  their  creeds,  so  far  as  I 
recollect,  without  a  single  exception.  Now,  my 
argument  is  this.  The  several  parts  of  this  sys- 
tem must  stand  or  fall  together ;  and,  I  pre- 
sume, will  always  be  found  to  do  so.  Those 
who  deny  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son, 
will  naturally,  and  almost  unavoidably,  deny 

G 


74     TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

the  eternal  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
learned  and  pious  Dr.  JRidgeley,  explicitly 
does  this.  I  gather,  from  your  Letters,  my  dear 
Sir,  that  you  also,  do  the  same.  Indeed  I  know 
of  no  one  who  rejects  the  former,  who  does  not 
also  reject  the  latter.  And,  the  truth  is,  the 
same  general  reasoning  which  leads  any  man 
to  discard  the  one,  can  scarcely  fail  of  leading 
him  to  discard  the  other.  I  know  that  this  fact 
does  not  prove  that  either  of  these  doctrines  is 
true  and  scriptural ;  hut  certainly  it  proves  so 
much ; — that  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  eter- 
nal Sonship  of  Christ,  is  not  a  mere  insulated 
point  in  theology ;  that  it  bears  extensive  and 
by  no  means  uninteresting  relations ;  that  it 
breaks  up  a  system ;  that  it  invades  pretty  se- 
riously the  matter,  as  well  as  the  phraseology, 
of  established  creeds;  and  that  it  leaves  us 
without  any  titles  or  language  which  seem 
adapted  to  express  close  and  endearing 
relation  between  the  Persons  of  the  ever 
blessed  Trinity.  Whether  this  consideration 
has  been,  in  all  cases,  sufficiently  weighed,  I 
will  not  undertake  to  say.  But  I  will  say,  that 
it  strikes  me  as  a  very  important  consideration; 
that  it  presents,  to  my  view,  a  very  serious 
barrier,  which,  if  I  were  proceeding  in  your 
course,  I  should  consider  myself  as  bound  fairly 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  75 

to  surmount,  before  I  could  feel  at  full  liberty 
to  go  forward. 

So  far  as  I  know,  the  orthodox  believers  in 
the  Trinity  have  been  in  the  habit,  from  time 
immemorial,  of  considering  the  Persons  in  the 
Godhead  as  united  by  ineffable  relations, 
and  yet  as  all  distinguished  by  incommuni- 
cable properties.  This  has  always  been  a 
leading  and  indispensable  idea.  Accordingly, 
when  we  consider  the  Second  Person,  as  stand- 
ing related  by  a  Divine  Filiation  to  the  First ; 
and  the  Third,  as  being,  in  a  divine  and  incom- 
prehensible sense,  the  Spiration,  or  Breath  of 
the  First  and  Second  5  a  system  is  presented 
which  provides  for  the  idea  in  question  in  all 
its  fulness ;  while  it  accords  most  happily  with 
the  language  of  Scripture.  But,  according  to 
your  view  of  the  subject,  there  would  seem  to 
be  no  relation  at  all  between  the  Persons 
of  the  Trinity ;  that  is,  there  seem  to  be  no 
titles  or  representations,  on  your  plan,  which 
indicate  related  states  between  these  Persons. 
You  speak,  indeed,  ef  Persons — and  sometimes 
of  "  distinctions" — in  the  Trinity ;  but,  while 
you  discard  the  titles  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  as  indicating  eternal  and  ineffable  rela- 
tions between  these  Divine  Persons,  I  cannot 
see  that  you  substitute  any  others  in  their 


76T  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

place.  You  give  us  no  names  expressive  of 
either  relation  or  distinction.  In  short,  you 
seem  to  me  to  exhibit  and  to  leave  the  subject, 
as  to  this  point,  under  an  aspect  altogether  un- 
friendly to  scriptural  views  of  related  Persons 
in  one  Tri-une  Jehovah ;  and  calculated  to  fa- 
vour either  Sahellianisin  on  the  one  hand,  or 
Tri-theism  on  the  other. 

VII.  I  will  now  proceed  to  consider  some 
or  those  detached  passages  of  Scripture,  which 
I  am  constrained  to  regard  as  teaching  the 
doctrine  of  the  eternal  Sonship  of  Christ.  And 
as  most  of  them  have  been  much  canvassed  by 
late  writers,  I  shall,  with  respect  to  the  greater 
part  of  them,  do  little  more  than  state  my  in- 
terpretation in  the  most  cursory  manner,  with- 
out attempting  to  enter  largely  into  that  bound- 
less field  of  verbal  criticism,  which  to  many  is 
so  tempting;  but  for  which  I  acknowledge 
myself  never  to  have  had  much  either  of  taste 
or  talent. 

The  first  passage,  which  I  shall  adduce,  and 
which  I  cannot  help  thinking  affords  powerful 
support  to  my  cause,  is  found  in  Proverbs  viii. 
22 — 31.  You  have,  indeed,  dismissed  these 
verses  with  an  unceremoniousness,  which,  to 
one  who  did  not  know  you  so  well  as  I  do, 
would  seem  to  promise  but  little  disposition  to 


P 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  77 

weigh  impartially  what  may  be  offered  in  fa- 
vour of  the  usual  interpretation.  But  I  have 
so  much  confidence  in  your  candour,  that  I 
am  sure  you  will  accompany  me,  without  im- 
patience, for  a  few  moments,  while  I  offer  a 
word  or  two  in  support  of  that  interpretation. 
That  the  Wisdom  here  spoken  of  does  not 
refer  to  an  attribute  of  man,  I  presume  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  say.  Your  idea  respect- 
ing it  seems  to  be,  that  it  is  an  attribute  of  the 
Deity  strikingly  and  beautifully  personified . 
This  is  the  old  Socinian  exposition  of  the  pas- 
sage ;  but  to  this  gloss  I  have  objections  which 
appear  to  me  insuperable.  My  first  objection 
is,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  whole  current  of 
Christian  expositors  in  all  ages.  In  the  ancient 
church  none  ever  questioned,  that  by  Wisdom 
here  is  intended  the  Son  of  God ;  and  all  or- 
thodox commentators,  of  any  name,  since  the 
reformation,  have,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  with 
scarcely  any  exception,  adopted  the  same  in- 
terpretation. My  second  objection  is,  that 
applying  such  expressions  as  these — I  was  set 
up  from  everlasting — when  there  were  no 
depths  I  was  brought  forth — when  he  pre- 
ared  the  heavens,  I  was  there — when  he  ap- 
pointed the  foundations  of  the  earth,  then,  I 
was  by  him,  as  one  brought  up  with  him — 
g2 


78  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

and  Iivas  daily  his  delight,  rejoicing  always 
before  him — I  say  applying  such  expressions 
as  these,  to  a  mere  attribute  of  Deity,  appears 
to  me  so  great,  not  to  say  so  violent  a  depar- 
ture from  all  the  usages  of  language,  that  I 
cannot  suppose  a  sober  writer,  much  less  an 
inspired  one,  would  pursue  a  course  so  ex- 
tremely likely  to  mislead.  That  we  should  be 
told  gravely  that  a  necessary  and  eternal  per- 
fection of  the  Most  High  was  always  with 
him — ivas  set  up  from  everlasting — was 
brought  up  with  him — and  rejoicing  always 
before  him. — That  it  should  be  said  of  Wisdom, 
as  a  mere  attribute,  counsel  is  mine,  and  sound 
ivisdom, — that  is  that  an  attribute  may  be  the 
subject  of  an  attribute,  or  that  a  thing  may  be 
said  to  possess  itself — is  what  I  confess  I  have 
not,  as  yet,  a  sufficient  u  understanding  of  the 
"  nature  of  Hebrew  poetry,  and  of  poetick 
"  language  in  general,"  to  enable  me  to  digest. 
My  third  objection  is,  that  the  Wisdom  which 
speaks  in  this  chapter,  is  evidently  the  same 
that  speaks  in  chapter  i.  20,  &c.  of  the  same 
book  ;  and  that  the  Wisdom  which  speaks  in 
the  latter,  is  plainly,  I  had  almost  said  incon- 
testibly,  not  an  attribute,  but  a  divine  Person. 
My  fourth  objection  is,  that  Wisdom  is  one  of 
the  titles  expressly  given  to  Christ  in  the  New 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.     79 

Testament ;  and  also  that  the  principal  things 
here  attributed  to  Wisdom,  are  elsewhere 
clearly  attributed  to  the  Son  of  God.  My 
fifth  objection  is,  that  I  think  it  has  been  made 
out  to  demonstration,  by  Dr.  Mlix,  in  his 
Judgment  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  by  other 
writers  on  the  same  subject,  as  before  stated, 
that  the  ancient  Jewish  uninspired  writers, 
were  in  the  constant  habit  of  using  the  terms 
Word  and  Wisdom,  interchangeably,  as  pro- 
per  names  for  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity; 
which  clearly  renders  it  more  likely  that  a 
work  written  by  an  inspired  Jew,  for  the  use 
of  Jews,  would  employ  the  same  language  in 
the  same  signification. 

With  respect  to  an  expression  in  the  24th 
verse,  When  there  ivere  no  depths,  I  tvas 
brought  forth  ; — and  a  similar  one  in  the 
25th  you  say,  (Letters,  p.  127.)  "It  is  the 
"  action  of  parturition,  and  not  of  generation, 
a  which  is  indicated  by  this  language."  Par- 
don me,  my  dear  Sir; — it  is  with  unfeigned 
diffidence  that  I  ask  the  question  of  one  whom 
I  know  to  be  so  much  my  superior  in  Biblical 
criticism  ; — but  are  you  not  mistaken  ?  I  grant 

at  our  English  translation  of  those  verses 
would  naturally  lead  to  such  a  conclusion.  And 
I  grant,  too,  that  the  radical  word  Slfi;  here 


a. 


80  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

in  question,  does  sometimes  signify  parturiviu 
But  do  not  the  best  lexicographers  tell  us 
that  it  signifies — genuit,  generavit,  cum  de 
viris  usurpatur,  et  peperit,  cum  de  mulieri- 
bus  ?  The  word  is  moreover,  in  this  place,  in 
the  Pyhal  preterite,  in  which  form  the  Lexi- 
cons give  genuit  and  peperit :  which  we  are 
to  adopt,  is,  of  course,  to  be  determined  only 
by  the  question  whether  a  father  or  a  mother 
is  spoken  of.  Now,  it  is  evident  that,  in  the 
place  before  us,  our  Lord's  relation  to  the  vir- 
gin Mary  is  not  spoken  of,  for  in  that  case  the 
assertion  would  not  be  true.  If,  then,  the 
passage  refers  to  Christ,  what  is  said  is  in  re- 
ference to  his  relation  to  God  the  Father ;  and 
this  is  evident  from  the  context.  But,  through- 
out the  Bible,  the  masculine  gender  only  is 
applied  to  God  the  Father.  The  word  in 
question,  therefore,  in  this  place,  ought  to 
have  been  translated  begotten,  and  will  not,  as 
it  appears  to  me,  legitimately  bear  any  other 
interpretation.  This,  of  course,  coincides  ex- 
actly with  the  doctrine  which  I  maintain,  and 
could  not,  I  should  say,  be  reconciled  with  any 
other.  To  this  may  be  added,  that  the  same 
word  here  translated  brought  forth,  is  used 
in  DeuU  xxxii.  18;  in  Job  xxvi.  13 5  and  in 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  81 


Psalm  xc.  2,  in  every  one  of  which  cases  the 
idea  of  parturition  is  absolutely  precluded. 

You  acknowledge  that  the  early  Fathers 
generally  supposed  that  the  Logos  of  the  apos- 
tle John  was  the  Person  speaking  in  the  eighth 
chapter  of  Proverbs,  You  ascribe  this,  how- 
ever, to  their  very  imperfect  acquaintance 
with  the  "  principles  of  sacred  exegesis." 
And  you  add — "  At  the  present  hour,  after 
"  the  lapse  of  more  than  fifteen  centuries,  and 
i*  with  all  the  advantages  which  commentaries 
■''  and  lexicons  can  now  offer  to  the  interpre- 
"  ters  of  Scripture,  there  are  multitudes  of 
"  writers  who  still  find  the  Logos  in  the  same 
i(  passage  of  Solomon's  writings."  For  my 
part,  I  cordially  rejoice  that  it  is  so.  Long 
may  the  friends  of  truth  continue  thus  faithful 
to  the  trust  committed  to  them !  Far  distant 
hence  be  the  time — (and  in  this  wish  I  am  sure 
the  respected  Brother  to  whom  I  write,  what- 
ever may  be  his  opinion  about  a  particular 
passage,  will  heartily  join  with  me)  Far  dis- 
tant hence  be  the  time  when  the  disciples  of 
Christ  shall  yield  themselves  to  the  guidance 
of  those  Commentators  and  Lexicographers 
who  bewilder  and  mislead  by  their  proffered 
help,  and  would  teach  men  to  banish  the  Sa- 
viour from  the  pages  of  his  own  word ! 


82  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

Strikingly  coincident  as  it  appears  to  me 
with  the  text  just  commented  on,  is  another 
passage,  in  Proverbs  xxx.  4.  Who  hath 
ascended  up  into  heaven,  or  descended?  Who 
hath  gathered  the  wind  in  his  fists  ?  Who 
hath  bound  the  waters  in  a  garment  ?  Who 
hath  established  all  the  ends  of  the  earth? 
What  is  his  name,  and  what  his  son's  name, 
if  thou  canst  tell?  On  this  text,  I  must  say, 
with  the  judicious  and  excellent  Dr.  Scott, 
that,  although  other  interpretations  have  been 
frequently  adopted,  "  yet  it  seems  to  me  a 
"  prophetical  intimation  of  Him  who  came 
"  down  from  heaven  to  be  our  Instructor  and 
"  Saviour,  and  then  ascended  into  heaven  to 
u  be  our  Advocate ;  who,  as  One  with  the 
u  Father,  created  and  upholds  all  things  ;  who 
"  was  known  in  some  measure  to  the  ancient 
u  church  as  Jehovah,  I  am,  and  as  the  Only 
••  begotten  Son,  and  from  whom  alone  the 
"  knowledge  of  God  can  be  obtained." — If  the 
Sonship  here  spoken  of,  were  founded  entirely 
on  the  Saviour's  coming  into  the  world,  or 
being  invested  with  the  mediatorial  office,  I 
should  certainly  think  the  language  of  this 
text  singular  and  unaccountable ;  but  on  the 
supposition  that  it  refers  to  an  eternal  and  in- 
effable filiation,  which  far  transcends  our  fa- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.     83 

culties,  and  to  which  nothing  earthly  can  be 
compared,  then  it  is  perfectly  natural,  and 
peculiarly  appropriate. — Besides;  when  this 
text  was  penned,  according  to  your  plan,  there 
was  no  Son  of  God.  His  Sonship  did  not 
commence  until  a  number  of  centuries  after- 
wards. If  this  had  been  so,  would  the  sacred 
writer  have  been  at  all  likely  to  use  such  lan- 
guage? 

Again ;  I  am  constrained  to  lay  no  little 
stress,  as  a  testimony  in  favour  of  my  doctrine, 
on  John  i.  14.  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh, 
and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory, 
the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father. 
Here  my  argument  is,  that  the  glory  of  the 
Word  is  said  to  be  the  glory  of  the  Only  be- 
gotten of  the  Father;  plainly  implying,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  that  the  Word,  as  such,  is  be- 
gotten :  and,  as  the  Word  is  acknowledged  by 
you  to  be  Divine  and  eternal;  nay,  as  the 
Word  is  expressly  said,  in  this  very  chapter, 
to  have  been  in  the  beginning  with  God,  to 
be  God,  and  to  have  made  the  world;  an$i  as 
the  Son  and  Word  in  this  passage  are  evi- 
dently the  same;  so  it  is  manifest  that  the  Son 
is  eternally  begotten  of  the  Father. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  alledged,  that  between 
the   Word  and  the  Only  begotten  of  the  Fa- 


84  TESTIMONY  OP  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

ther,  only  likeness  ia  predicated, — not  iden- 
tity. But  does  not  the  particle  bg,  which  our 
translators  render  as,  express  in  the  original 
much  more  than  likeness  or  similarity  ?  Some 
excellent  criticks,  I  think,  assure  us  that  it 
does ;  that  its  import  is  indeed  or  truly;  and 
that  it  denotes  what  is  indeed  or  really  the 
same  with  what  had  been  before  mentioned. 
The  learned  Dr.  Macknight  expresses  him- 
self with  regard  to  this  point  thus.  "  Clg  is 
u  sometimes  used  affirmatively,  and  must  be 
4i  translated  indeed,  truly,  certainly,  actually; 
"  for  Hesy chius  and  Phavorinus  tell  us,  that 
"  dg  is  put  for  ov?q$,  aXyj^Qg.  Nehemiah  vii.  2. 
**  Avtog  og  avyjp  a^yj^yjg,  He  was  indeed  a  true 
«  man,  Matt  xiv.  5.  He  feared  the  multitude, 
*<  because  they  counted  [John,  dg  npo^yjtyjg) 
"  really  a  prophet,  John  i.  14.  We  beheld  his 
u  glory,  the  glory  (dg  uovoysvyjg)  indeed  of  the 
"  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  Acts  xvii.  22. 
4i  I  see  that  in  all  things  ye  are  (bg)  certainly 
"  most  religious.  Romans  ix.  32.  But  {dg) 
"  actually  by  works  of  law.  2  Cor.  ii.  17. 
"  AXX'  dg  e%  eiTuxpLvecag,  aTX  dg  ex  068.  But 
u  indeed  from  sincerity,  and  from  God."* 
In  this  sense  of  the  particle  in  question,  the 

*  Preliminary  Essays,  iv.  vol.  i.  p.  160f 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  85 

learned  Schlmsner  concurs ;  though  he  does 
not  assign  to  it  the  first  place  in  his  list. 

If  the  above  criticism  be  correct,  then  the 
passage  in  question  may  be  thus  paraphrased 
— "  We  beheld  his  glory,  that  glory  which 
u  was  proper  and  peculiar  to  Him  who  is  ori- 
"  ginally  the  same  in  nature  with  the  Father > 
"  mid  eternally  begotten  of  him,  in  such  an 
"  inconceivable  manner,  as  none  other  besides 
"  himself  ever  was"* 

In  accordance  with  this  interpretation,  Gro- 
this  observes,  on  this  place,  that  the  Evan- 
gelist John  evidently  here  aims  at  the  Gnos- 
tics, who  represented  the  Word  as  one,  the 
Only  begotten  another,  and  Jesus  the  third ; 
and  who  reckoned  the  Only  begotten  among 
their  JEons,  bom  before  this  world.  This  he 
has  no  doubt  the  apostle  meant  to  condemn ; 
and  to  assert  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
only  true  Word  of  God,  the  true  only  begot- 
ten Son  of  the  Father,  as  being  alone  begotten 
by  him  before  all  time. 

There  is  a  class  of  Scriptures  which  I  have 
long  thought  worthy  of  notice  in  reference  to 
this  subject.  They  are  such  as  these,  Matt 
xi.  27.  No  man  knoweth  the  Son,  but  the  Fa- 
ther ;  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father 

*  'Guyse  in  loc. 

H 


86  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C* 

save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
will  reveal  him.  Luke  x.  22.  No  man  knoweth 
ivho  the  Son  is,  but  the  Father,  and  who  the 
Father  is,  but  the  So?i,  tyc.  John  x.  15.  As 
the  Father  knoweth  me,  even  so  know  I  the 
Father.  John  vi.  46.  Not  that  any  one  hath 
seen  the  Father,  save  he  that  is  of  God,  he 
hath  seen  the  Father.  John  i.  18.  No  man 
hath  seen  God  at  any  time;  the  only  begotten 
Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he 
hath  declared  him*  All  these  passages  appear 
to  me  to  assert  that  the  nature  of  the  Son,  as 
such,  and  the  relation  which  he  bears  to  the 
Father,  are  incomprehensible  and  ineffable; 
that  none  can  know  them  but  the  Father  him- 
self; and  that  the  Son,  as  Son,  knows  the  Fa- 
ther as  intimately,  as  completely,  and  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  manner,  as  the  Father  knows 
the  Son.  But  if  this  be  their  meaning,  I  ap- 
prehend there  is  no  doctrine  to  which  they  so 
naturally  and  directly  conduct  us,  as  that  of  a 
Sonship  Divine  and  eternal. 

Another  Scripture,  which,  notwithstanding 
all  that  you  say  to  give  it  a  different  aspect, 
I  cannot  but  deem  conclusive  on  this  subject, 
is  Bomans  i.  3,  4.  Concerning  his  So?i  Jesus 
Christ,  our  Lord,  which  was  made  of  the  seed 
of  David,  according  to  the  flesh,  and  declared 
to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  according 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  87 

to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  The  slightest  inspection  of  the 
original  of  this  passage,  will  be  sufficient,  I 
must  think,  to  convince  any  one,  that  there  is  a 
contrast  intended  between  that  which  is  as- 
serted of  Christ  in  the  third  verse,  and  that 
which  is  asserted  of  him  in  the  fourth.  He  is 
said,  in  the  former,  to  be  of  the  seed  of  David, 
or  the  Son  of  man,  xojta  aapxa,  but,  in  the 
latter,  to  be  the  Son  of  God  xara  nvevpa 
aytwjvvyjg.  Now  I  ask,  what  is  meant  by  this 
contrast?  I  really  cannot  assign  any  intelligible 
meaning  to  the  apostle's  language,  but  by  sup- 
posing that  he  intends  to  set  in  opposition  to 
each  other  the  Divine  and  human  natures  of 
Christ ;  and  to  say  that,  according  to  the  lat- 
ter, He  is  the  Son  of  David,  but  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  former,  He  is  the  Son  of  God.  The 
plain  import  of  the  passage,  then,  is  this — 
u  Concerning  his  Son,  who  was  of  the  seed  of 
David,  according  to  his  human  nature,  but 
powerfully  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 

ACCORDING    TO  HIS    DlVINE    NATURE,    by  his 

resurrection  from  the  dead."  This  sense  of  the 
passage,  and  especially  of  the  contrasted 
clauses,  xata  aaoxa,  and  mra  nvevpa  ayu^cfw^g, 
is  decisively  maintained  by  Dr.  Macknight, 
and  by  the  learned  Schleusner,  as  well  as  by 


88  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

other  criticks  of  high  name,  whom  I  need  not 
mention. 

But  if  this  interpretation  be  adopted,  it  is 
fatal  to  your  doctrine  respecting  the  Re- 
deemer's Sonship,  and  conclusively  establishes 
mine.  If  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  not 
on  account  of  his  human  nature,  but  in  re- 
ference to  his  Divine  nature,  then  his  Sonship 
is  evidently  divine  and  eternal. 

Nor  can  I  by  any  means  agree  with  you  that 
opuadevtog,  in  the  fourth  verse  ought  to  be  ren- 
dered constituted,  instead  of  declared;  so  as  to 
make  the  meaning  of  the  clause  to  be,  that 
Christ  was  constituted  Son  by  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  and  not  declared  or  manifested 
to  be  Son  by  that  event.  I  will  only  say,  that 
this  criticism  is  contrary  to  the  judgment  of 
our  translators ;  contrary  to  the  decision,  as 
you  acknowledge,  of  Schleusncr ;  contrary  to 
the  strongly  expressed  opinion  of  Macknight, 
Doddridge,  Eisner,  and  a  number  of  others, 
generally  regarded  as  among  the  best  autho- 
rities in  cases  of  this  kind.  Besides,  Christ  was 
evidently  recognized  as  Son,  and  styled  Son, 
long  before  his  resurrection  took  place;  of 
course,  it  is  impossible  that  his  Sonship  should 
have  been  constituted  by  that  event,  as  will 
hereafter  be  shewn.  I  cannot  admit,  therefore^ 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  89 

that  you  have  rendered  your  interpretation  of 
this  word  at  all  probable ;  and,  of  course,  must 
consider  the  whole  verse  as  declaring,  that 
Christ  was  powerfully  demonstrated,  or  deter- 
minutely  marked  qui \  as  the  Son  of  God,  ac- 
cording to  his  Divine  nature,  by  his  re- 
surrection  from  the  dead.  And,  if  this  render- 
ing of  the  passage  be  adopted,  your  suggestion, 
to  relieve  a  difficulty,  that  it  is  spoken  of  Christ 
not  as  to  his  Divine  nature,  but  as  the  Messiah, 
cannot  possibly  be  admitted ;  for  the  apostle 
expressly  says  the  contrary ;  he  tells  us,  that 
He  is  the  Son  of  God  according  to  his  Divine 
nature. 

Indeed  I  should  say,  that  the  single  expres- 
sion— Of  the  seed  of  David,  according  to 
the  flesh,  is  enough  to  refute  your  doctrine, 
and  establish  mine.  If  Christ  is  called  the 
Son  of  God,  on  account  of  his  incarnation,  or 
his  investiture  with  human  nature ;  on  what 
account,  or  in  what  capacity,  is  he  called  the 
Son  of  man  ?  On  the  other  hand,  if  he  be  the 
Son  of  man,  or  of  the  seed  of  David,  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  what  is  he  according  to  the 
Spirit,  or  according  to  his  Divine  Nature? 
Do  all  these  forms  of  expression  point  to  the 
same  event,  and  signify  the  same  thing  ?  I 
cannot  easily  believe  this.     On  my  plan  with 

h2 


90  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C 

respect  to  the  Sonship  of  Christ,  this  language 
is  natural,  appropriate,  and  instructive :  but 
on  yours,  as  I  understand  it,  I  am  not  able  to 
interpret  these  expressions  in  a  way  which  ap- 
pears to  me  even  plausible. 

I  also  attach  much  importance,  as  you  justly 
observe  others  have  done,  to  Hebrews  i.  2.  as 
a  means  of  support  to  the  doctrine  of  the  eter- 
nal Sonship  of  Christ.    God  hath,  in  these  last 
days,  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son,  by  whom  he 
made  the  worlds.     This  may  also  be  taken 
in  connection  with  the  8th  and  10th  verses, 
before^  quoted.     But  unto  the  Son  he  saith, 
Thy  throne,   O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever — 
And  thou  Lord,  in  the  beginning,  hast  laid 
the  foundation  of  the  earth  ;  and  the  heavens, 
are  the  works  of  thy  hands,  fyc.     If  the  ex- 
alted Person  here  called  Son,  were  not  Son 
before  the  creation  of  the  worlds,  I  do  ask,  as 
you  suggest,  how  could  the  Father  make  the 
worlds  by  him  ?  And  if  he  were  Son  so  long 
before  his  incarnation, — nay,  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world,  then  how  can  his  Sonship 
be  referred  to  any  thing  which  took  place  in 
time? 

And  here,  I  humbly  conceive  that  your  re- 
marks respecting  the  import  of  the  preposition 
Sta,  in  this  passage,  can  in  no  degree  serve 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  91 

your  purpose.  For,  even  if  you  were  to  ren- 
der that  word,  as  it  occurs  in  the  second  verse, 
for  whom,  instead  of  by,  as  the  Socinians  have 
long  since  insisted  on  doing ;  and  even  if  it 
were  maintained  that  oucora^,  in  the  same  verse, 
ought  to  be  translated  ages,  and  not  worlds, 
as  the  same  class  of  critics  have  stoutly  urged ; 
still  both  criticisms  would  be  unavailing ;  for 
the  10th  verse  conclusively  ascertains  that 
the  Son,  in  the  beginning  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  the  earth,  and  that  the  heavens  are  the 
wwks  of  his  hands.  A  mode  of  expression 
which  I  should  suppose  could  hardly  be  more 
precise  or  explicit  in  assigning  to  the  Son  the 
work  of  creation.  Nor  ought  it,  I  apprehend, 
to  be  considered  as  militating  against  this  in- 
terpretation, that  in  the  10th  verse  we  have 
a  repetition  of  the  idea  contained  in  the  eighth. 
I  do  not  perceive  the  shadow  of  a  difficulty 
here.  In  the  second  verse,  the  inspired  writer 
asserts,  as  a  fact,  and  as  an  important  part  of 
his  argument,  that  the  Son  made  the  worlds. 
In  the  tenth,  he  represents  the  Father,  in  ad- 
dressing the  Son,  as  recognizing  that  fact,  and 
speaking  of  it  distinctly,  as  a  testimonial  to  his 
essential  honour  and  glory.  This  is  so  far 
from  being  an  improbable  repetition,  that  no- 
thing, it  appears  to  me,  can  be  more  natural. 


92  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

The  method  of  evading  the  force  of  this  pas- 
sage on  which  you  appear  to  rely  most,  I  ac- 
knowledge, does  not  satisfy  me.  It  is,  (p. 
136.)  that  u  designations  originally  descriptive 
ff  merely  of  quality,  rank,  &c.  in  process  of  time, 
"  by  frequent  usage,  become  proper  names, 
"  and  are  very  commonly  substituted  for  them, 
u  so  as  to  be  descriptive  of  the  whole  person 
u  or  being."  u  Such,"  you  proceed  to  say, 
"  is  the  case  with  several  of  the  names  given 
"  to  Christ.  The  very  appellation,  Christy 
"  signifies  anointed  ;  co  ^ptcrrog,  the  anointed 
(i  one,  the  king,  the  special,  supreme  ruler  of 
u  God's  people.  Yet  this  name,  (the  same 
"  as  Messiah,  being  merely  a  Greek  transla- 
"  tion  of  the  Hebrew  rV&'D)  originally  appli- 
u  cable  only  to  the  incarnate  Logos,  or  the 
"  Logos  as  dwelling  among  men,  and  after- 
u  wards  reigning  over  them,  in  a  nature  like 
«  theirs,  is  used  also  to  describe  either  part  of 
"  his  compound  Person ;  the  human  nature  or 
"  the  divine."  I  am  not,  I  say,  satisfied  with 
this  solution  of  the  difficulty  which  the  apos- 
tle's words,  on  your  plan,  present.     For 

(1.)  It  appears  to  me  an  interpretation  which 
does  violence  to  the  language  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  That  declares  that  the  Son  of  God 
made  the  worlds.    Your  solution  says,  that  it 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  93 

was  not  exactly  so  ;  but  that  the  worlds  were 
made  by  him  who  was  not  Son,  when  they 
were  made,  but  became  entitled  to  this  name 
four  thousand  years  afterwards. 

(2.)  Granting  that  your  leading  idea  re- 
specting proper  names,  in  this  case,  is  correct; 
and  I  admit  that  it  is  substantially  so  ;  still  it 
proves  nothing  in  favour  of  your  hypothesis. 
For,  on  the  supposition  that  the  second  Person 
of  the  Trinity  is  the  eternal  Son,  according  to 
my  creed,  the  very  same  mode  of  expression 
which  the  apostle  has  actually  adopted  might 
evidently  have  been,  even  on  your  own  prin- 
ciple, employed,  and  would  have  been  both 
natural  and  proper.  Those  who  hold  to  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  grant  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  the  Messiah.  Now  if,  on  our 
ground,  the  language  of  the  apostle  would 
have  been  just  as  correct  as  on  yours,  what  ad- 
vantage do  you  gain  by  your  interpretation  ? 
•This,  however,  will  be  more  fully  illustrated 
in  my  next  letter,  when  I  give  my  ideas  of 
Luke  i.  35. — But 

(3.)  The  title  in  question  is  not  strictly 
parallel  with  that  with  which  you  compare  it. 
The  term  Son,  you  contend,  has  no  proper 
application  to  the  divine  and  eternal  nature  of 
Christ,  as  such.     But  the  title  Christ,  I  con- 


94  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

tend,  has  such  an  application.  With  respect 
to  both  his  Divine  and  human  natures,  Christ 
was  the  anointed  one.  In  his  Divine  nature 
he  surely  was  anointed,  or  set  apart,  in  the 
counsels  of  peace,  from  eternity  to  the  work 
which  he  executed  in  time ;  and  of  course,  the 
title  in  question  is  not  applied  with  any  liberty 
of  speech,  but  had  a  strictly  literal  and  equal 
application  to  both  natures  as  such. 

I  find  also,  as  I  think,  proof  of  my  doctrine 
in  Hebrews  iii.  5,  6.  Moses  verily  was  faith- 
ful in  all  his  house,  as  a  servant; — but  Christ 
as  a  Son  over  his  own  house,  &c.  All  agree 
that  the  apostle  is  here  shewing  that  Christ  is 
superior  to  Moses.  The  former,  amidst  all 
his  dignity,  acted  only  as  a  servant.  He  had 
no  inherent  and  essential  authority  of  his  own. 
It  was  all  given  to  him.  But  with  Christ  it 
was  otherwise.  He  was  as  a  Son  over  his 
own  house.  That  is,  as  I  understand  it,  in 
virtue  of  his  character  as  Son  of  God,  he  had 
essential  authority  in  himself.  As  Mediator, 
he  was  the  Father's  Servant,  as  we  read 
Isaiah  xlii.  1.  But  as  Son,  he  had  original 
authority  in  the  house  and  family  of  God.  It 
was  his  own  house,  in  a  sense  in  which  it 
could  not  be  constituted  his  by  any  official 
investment. 


TESTIMONY  Of  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  95 

I  am  not  able  to  perceive  that  any  thing 
which  you  say  on  this  passage  (p.  140)  in  the 
least  impairs  its  force,  as  a  testimony  in  my 
favour.     The  text  which  you  quote  as  a  pa- 
rallel one  in  Hebrews  i»  2.  cannot,  I  think,  be 
so  considered.    The  Son  of  God,  as  such,  has 
inherent,  essential  and  eternal  authority  ;  and 
as  such,  of  course,  has  authority  in  the  church, 
in  a  sense  that  no  creature  ever  had.    But  as 
Son,  he  is  not  necessarily  and  essentially  heir 
of  the  universe.    The  lordship  of  the  universe 
belonged  originally  to  all  the  Persons  of  the 
Godhead  equally ;  to  the  tri-une  Jehovah  as 
such.    But  the  Second  Person,  or  the  Son,  as 
I  suppose,  with  a  view  to  the  great  work  of 
Redemption,  was  appointed  to  this  heirship, 
or  constituted  heir ;  that  is,  the  supremacy  of 
the  universe  was  committed  to  the  Second  Per- 
son of  the  Trinity,  for  a  special  purpose,  in  a 
sense  in  which  it  did  not,  after  this  official  com- 
mitment, officially  belong  to  the  First  or  Third 
Person.     If  so,  there  is  nothing  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  this  latter  passage,  which  at  all 
interferes  with  the  meaning  which  I  attach  to 
the  former. 

Another  passage  of  Scripture  appears  to 
me?  still  more  conclusively,  to  teach  the  doc- 
trine for  which  I  contend.  I  refer  to  Hebrews 


96     TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C, 

v,  8.  Though  he  were  a  Son,  yet  learned  he 
obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered. — 
The  whole  spirit  and  force  of  this  passage  evi- 
dently lies  in  the  assumed  fact,  that  the  Son- 
ship  of  the  Redeemer  naturally  elevated  him 
above  the  obligation  of  obedience:  that,  as 
Son,  he  was  not  called  or  bound  to  obey,  being 
above  it :  that  he  voluntarily  condescended 
to  be  made  under  the  law,  which  originally 
had  no  claim  upon  him.  On  his  own  ac- 
count, no  such  obedience  was  necessary  or  re- 
quired of  him ;  but  for  our  sake  he  learned  it, 
and  submitted  to  it.  But  if  the  Sonship  of 
Christ  consist  merely  in  his  office  as  Mediator, 
then  the  statement  of  the  Apostle  will  amount 
to  neither  more  nor  less  than  this — That, 
though  he  were  Mediator,  yet  he  learned  the 
proper  and  stipulated  duty  of  a  Mediator.  In 
other  words,  though  he  bore  the  office,  yet 
he  learned  to  perform  its  duties.  Or,  still 
more  briefly,  though  he  was  Mediator,  yet  he 
acted  as  Mediator.  Can  we  suppose  that  a 
sober  and  inspired  Apostle  would  speak  thus  ? 
I  confess,  for  myself,  as  long  as  this  text  re- 
mains on  the  sacred  page,  I  must  continue  to 
believe  that  the  Filiation  of  the  Saviour  is  Di- 
vine and  eternal. 

Dr.   Ridgeley,   indeed,  attempts  to  take 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.     9? 

away  the  force  of  this  passage,  by  alleging, 
that  xatTtep,  in  the  beginning  of  the  verse  in 
question,  ought  probably  not  to  be  rendered 
although,  but  and,  or  indeed;  by  which  he 
would  make  the  Apostle  say,  that  being  truly 
or  indeed  Son,  he  learned  obedience,  &c.  In 
reply  to  this  suggestion,  I  shall  stop  only  to  say, 
that  the  most  able  criticks  whom  I  have  been 
able  to  consult,  and  among  the  rest,  Schleusner, 
give  not  the  smallest  countenance  to  this  ren- 
dering ;  but  almost  with  one  voice  confirm  the 
sense  given  by  our  translators. 

Another  passage  which  appears  to  me,  to 
support  the  doctrine  which  it  is  the  object  of 
these  Letters  to  maintain,  is  found  in  Hebrews 
vii.  3.  Without  father,  icithout  mother,  with- 
out descent,  having  neither  beginning  of  days 
nor  end  of  life;  but  made  like  unto  the  Son  of 
God,  abideth  a  priest  continually.  From  this, 
I  think,  it  evidently  follows — first,  that  Mel- 
chisedeck  was  not  the  Son  of  God  himself,  as 
some  have  supposed;  and  secondly,  that  Christ, 
as  the  Son  of  God,  existed  before  Melchise- 
deck  ;  and,  therefore,  that  he  could  not  derive 
this  title  either  from  his  incarnation,  or  his  re- 
surrection. Further:  as  Dr.  Hopkins  observes, 
"  If  there  were  no  Son  of  God  till  the  human 
"  nature  of  Christ  existed,  then  the  Son  of 

I 


9S  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

"  God  did  begin  to  exist;  consequently  there 
"  was  a  beginning  of  his  days,  and  Melchise- 
"  deck  was  not  made  like  him,  but  was  unlike 
u  to  him,  by  having  no  beginning  of  days." 

I  also  find,  as  it  appears  to  me,  no  small 
countenance  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  and 
eternal  Sonship  of  Christ,  in  Hebrews  vii.  28. 
For  the  law  maketh  men  high  priests  which 
have  infirmity;  but  the  word  of  the  oath, 
which  was  since  the  law,  maketh  the  Son,  who 
is  consecrated  for  evermore.  Here  the  inspired 
writer  tells  us  that  the  Son  of  God  was  made 
a  Priest  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  then,  before 
he  was  made,  or  considered  a  Pi'iest.  But  he 
was  made  or  considered  as  a  Priest,  as  soon  as 
he  was  made  or  considered  as  Messiah.  In- 
deed his  priestly  office  is  a  part  of  his  Messiah- 
ship.  It  follows,  then,  that,  in  the  order  of 
nature,  he  was  Son  before  he  was  Messiah. 
Nay,  it  was  his  character  as  Son,  that  quali- 
fied him  to  perform  the  office  of  Mediator.  His 
eternal  and  ineffable  relation  to  the  Father , — 
his  nearness  to  him  ; — his  lying  in  his  bosom  ; 
and  sharing  equally  with  him  in  his  glory  be- 
fore the  world  was; — qualified  him,  at  once, 
to  vindicate  the  divine  honour,  and  to  bring  in 
everlasting  righteousness  for  the  justification  of 
his  people. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.     99 

Such  is  the'direct  testimony  of  Scripture  on 
which  I  found,  my  belief  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
eternal  Sonship  of  the  blessed  Redeemer.  Fur- 
ther quotations  might  be  multiplied  to  a  con- 
siderable extent ;  but  I  will  not  longer  trespass 
on  your  patience  on  this  branch  of  the  subject. 
I  can  scarcely  suppose  that  a  single  argument 
or  thought  which  I  havj  exhibited,  will  be 
wholly  new  to  you ;  and,  of  course,  can  scarcely 
venture  to  hope  that  what  I  have  offered  will 
produce  an  impression  on  your  mind  mate- 
rially favourable  to  my  creed. 

But  it  is  not  for  me  to  calculate  conse- 
quences. They  must  be  left  with  Him  who  has 
all  hearts,  and  all  the  interests  of  truth  in  his 
own  hands.  If  I  accomplish  nothing  else  by  my 
share  of  this  correspondence,  I  hope  I  shall  be 
considered  as  having  given  an  unequivocal  tes- 
timony of  regard  to  a  much  respected  Brother ; 
and  as  having  manifested  a  disposition  frankly 
to  comply  with  his  call  to  explain  and  support 
my  opinions. 


LETTER   IV*. 


Testimony  of  Scripture  continued — Objec- 
tions to  some  interpretations  of  Scripture 
stated  and  urged. 


REVEREND  A»D  DEAR  BROTHER, 

Thus  far  I  have  exhibited,  as  exten- 
sively as  my  plan  would  admit,  the  direct 
scriptural  testimony  in  favour  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Saviour's  eternal  Sonship.  I 
would  now  proceed  most;  respectfully  to  ex- 
amine those  arguments  drawn  from  scripture 
on  which  you  rely  for  the  support  of  your 
system.  This  I  shall  endeavour  to  do  with  all 
that  frankness  which  I  flatter  myself  I  have 
exercised  in  the  preceding  pages.  And  I  beg 
you  to  be  assured  that  nothing  which  I  am 
ft  bout  to  say  is  intended  to  answer  any  other 
purpose  than  to  bring  forth  and  elucidate  truth. 
If  I  know  my  own  heart,  I  should  abhor  the 
thought  of  attempting,  by  any  artifice,  to  excite 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    101 

odium  against  an  opinion  which  I  felt  that  I 
could  not  legitimately  refute. 

I.  And  here,  my  first  difficulty  arises  from 
the  manner  in  which  you  have  stated  the  doc- 
trine which  you  profess  to  hold. 

I  am  perplexed  by  your  appearing  to  main- 
tain   SEVERAL    DIFFERENT    FILIATIONS.      You 

seem  to  me  to  speak  of  at  least  three.  You 
speak  of  a  literal  Sonship,  when  the  Saviour 
became  incarnate,  or  was  born  of  the  Virgin, 
according  to  the  flesh;  of  a  figurative  Sonship, 
on  account  of  his  office  as  Messiah ;  and  in 
one  place,  as  it  appears  to  me,  of  another  figu- 
rative Sonship,  founded  on  his  rising  from  the 
dead,  and  thus  "  entering  on  a  new  life f9  on 
a  restored,  reanimated  existence. 

If  I  mistake  not,  this  plan  of  tracing  the 
title  of  Son  to  several  sources,  is  of  Unita- 
rian origin,  and  one  which,  until  a  compara- 
tively late  period,  was  confined  to  Brians  and 
Socinians,  and  a  few  Socinianizing  Remon- 
strants. This  fact  itself  is  a  circumstance  of 
rather  suspicious  character.  But  is  it  so,  that 
the  Sonship  of  Christ  is  a  complex,  multiform, 
gradual  thing?  Is  it  really  so,  that  it  was  be- 
gun at  one  time,  and  not  completed  until  a 
number  of  years  afterwards  ?  This  view  of  the 
subject,  I  acknowledge,  has  to  me  a  most  sin- 
i2 


</" 


102    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

gular  and  incredible  appearance.  We  are 
told,  indeed,  that  Christ,  as  to  his  human  na- 
ture, increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in 
favour  with  God  and  man,  Luke,  ii.  52 ;  but 
I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  having  read  in 
scripture,  of  his  increasing  in  his  Sonship. 
That  blessed  and  ineffable  relation  admitted, 
indeed,  of  different  evidences,  and  of  pro- 
gressive manifestations ;  but  not,  I  should 
think,  of  different  progressive  stages,  as  to  its 
essence,  or  that  which  constitutes  it  what  it  is. 
If  we  take  our  illustration  from  any  other 
known  case  of  sonship,  either  in  the  Bible,  or 
out  of  it,  we  shall  find  that  this  relation,  how- 
ever it  may  be  evinced,  is  constituted  by  some 
single  event,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others. 
Such  is  the  creed  which  I  embrace.  I  suppose 
that  the  Sonship  of  Christ  has  been  manifested 
in  various  wTays ;  but  that  the  relation  itself  is 
one  and  eternal. 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  my  difficulty.  I 
am  at  a  loss  to  know  which  of  these  filiations 
of  which  you  speak,  is,  in  your  view,  the  prin- 
cipal or  leading  one.  You  tell  me,  (page  117) 
that  the  title  Son  of  God  is  applied  to  the 
Saviour,  because  he  is  the  Messiah,  the  Christ ; 
'nay,  that,  after  all,  "  this  is  the  principal  or 
m  predominant  reason  for  giving  him  this  ap- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    103 

"  pellation."  But,  in  page  163,  you  say, 
«  Son,  therefore,  does  primarily  indicate  the 
"  inferior  nature,  as  united  to  the  divine ;" 
in  other  words,  Christ  is  primarily  Son,  be- 
cause he  was  born  of  a  woman.  How  am  I  to 
understand  this  ? 

I  have  another  and  still  greater  difficulty. 
One  of  the  reasons  on  account  of  which  you 
suppose  the  Saviour  is  called  Son  of  God,  is 
that  the  office  of  Messiah  or  King  was  con- 
ferred upon  him ;  and  his  generation  in  this 
respect  is  referred  to  his  resurrection,  as  the 
commencement  of  his  exaltation  to  this  office. 
But  Christ  surely  did  not  begin  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah when  he  rose  from  the  dead.  Neither, 
surely,  did  he  then  begin  to  be  King.  He  was 
expressly  called  both  Messiah  and  King  many 
centuries  before  his  birth  according  to  the  flesh. 
He  was  undoubtedly  constituted  such  in  the 
eternal  counsels  of  redemption ;  entered  on  the 
execution  of  the  office  four  thousand  years 
before  his  birth  of  the  Virgin;  and  was 
finally  raised  to  its  highest  honours,  when  he 
sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on 
high.  Of  course,  his  restoration  to  a  new  life 
from  the  grave,  could  not  have  been  that  which 
constituted  him  Messiah  or  King.  Yet,  if  this 
were  not  the  case,  a  number  of  the  principal 


104    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

texts  which  you  have  quoted  to  confirm  this 
sense  of  the  phrase,  Son  of  God,  cannot  apply 
to  it,  for  they  were  spoken  before  the  Saviour 
rose  from  the  dead,  and  of  consequence  before 
his  exaltation  to  his  high  office,  according  to 
your  system,  commenced.  And  again,  on  the 
same  supposition,  all  you  say  about  optadsvtog 
falls  to  the  ground*  For  if  Christ  were  not 
constituted  Messiah  or  King  by  his  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead,  but  only  declared  to  be 
such,  then  the  vital  spirit  of  your  comment  on 
Romans  i.  4,  noticed  in  the  preceding  Letter, 
vanishes,  and  that  scripture  becomes  an  indis- 
putable testimony  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  Sonship. 

Still  further  objections,  also,  as  it  appears 
to  me,  lie  against  assigning  as  the  ground  or 
reason  of  this  Filiation,  the  resurrection  of 
Christ.  For,  in  the  first  place,  he  rose  by  his 
own  power  ;  in  other  words,  he  raised  himself 
up ;  of  course,  upon  this  principle,  he  ought 
to  be  called  his  own  father.  Again ;  he  can- 
not be,  on  this  ground,  the  only  begotten  Son 
of  God  ;  for  though  he  is  called  the  first  fruits 
of  them  that  slept,  yet  all  his  people  will  be 
raised  up  in  a  manner  gloriously  resembling 
his  resurrection ;  and  indeed  the  wicked  them- 
selves will  finally  be  raised  up  by  his  power. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    105 

And,  finally ;  this,  after  all,  would  only  be  a 
figurative,  a  metaphorical  Sonship  ;  whereas, 
it  has  been  often  remarked,  the  Son  of  God  is 
called  very  often  the  Father's  own  Son,  and 
by  a  variety  of  similar  expressions,  which  in- 
dicate a  real,  true  Sonship,  that  is  a  genuine 
Divine  participation  of  the  Father's  own  pro- 
per nature. 

II.  If  I  do  not  misapprehend  the  view  of 
this  subject  which  you  present,  I  cannot  see 
how  you  are  to  escape  from  the  charge  of  Tri- 
theism.  You  contend,  and  with  great  pro- 
priety, that  all  ideas  of  derivation  or  infe- 
riority in  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity, 
are,  in  your  view,  incompatible  with  his  Divi- 
nity ;  and  on  this  account,  as  well  as  others, 
you  declare  that  you  cannot  be  reconciled  to 
the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation,  because 
you  cannot  attach  any  intelligible  idea  to  Son- 
ship  which  does  not  imply  the  derivation  of 
existence  from  another.  I  am,  my  dear  Sir, 
as  I  assured  you  in  a  former  Letter,  no  less 
opposed  than  yourself  to  the  idea  of  a  derived 
or  inferior  God.  The  very  thought  is  not  only 
inadmissible,  but  abhorrent.  But  in  your  zeal 
to  recede  from  a  doctrine  of  this  kind,  you 
appear  to  me  to  fall  into  a  mistake  scarcely 
less  hostile  to  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the 


106         TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C 

Trinity.  You  appear  to  me  to  maintain  that 
if  the  Logos  be  God,  equal  with  the  Father, 
he  must  be  a  completely  separate,  independent 
Being,  and  that  each  Person  of  the  adorable 
Trinity,  must  be  possessed  of  a  separate  and 
complete  divine  character,  independently  of 
the  other  two.  But,  as  I  hinted  in  a  preceding 
Letter,  I  cannot  perceive  how  this  can  be 
maintained  without  believing  in  three  Gods. 
Bishop  Horsley  speaks  of  "  certain  injudicious 
u  antagonists  of  Sabellius,  who,  to  avoid  his 
"  error,  divided  the  Holy  Trinity  into  three 
"  persons  unrelated  to  each  other,  and  dis- 
u  tinct  in  all  respects.  These,  he  observes, 
'*  Dionysius  Romanus  condemned,  and  JLtha- 
"  nasius  quotes  his  censure  with  approbation; 
"  as  well,  the  Bishop  adds,  he  might ;  for  the 
**  opinion  of  three  Persons  in  the  Godhead, 
<•  unrelated  to  each  other,  and  distinct  in  all 
**  respects,  is  rank  Tritheism  ;  because  what 
"  are  unrelated  and  distinct  in  all  respects, 
"  are  many  in  all  respects,  and  being  many  in 
**  all  respects,  cannot  in  any  respect  be  one."* 
As  I  understand  this  subject,  the  three  Per- 
sons of  the  blessed  Trinity  together  constitute 
One  self- existent,  independent,  and  infinitely 
perfect  God.  Each  of  the  Persons  is  to  be  con- 

*  Tracts  in  controversy  -with  Priestley,  p.  97. 


Testimony  op  scripture,  &c.      107 

sidered  as  equally  and  completely  possessing 
the  same  Divine  Essence  and  perfections ;  but 
surely  we  cannot  say,  that  each  Person  pos- 
sesses in  himself  complete,  separate,  and  inde- 
pendent Divinity ;  for  if  we  could,  then  each 
Person  would  be  a  perfect  God,  independently 
of  the  other  two ;  and  of  course,  might  exist 
with  every  infinite  perfection  without  them. 
Whereas,  we  suppose  that  the  three  Persons 
are  essential  to  the  perfect  and  independent 
Godhead;  that  the  Godhead  could  not  be  what 
it  is,  if  either  Person  was  wanting;  and,  conse- 
quently, that  no  One  of  them  can  be  said  to 
be,  (speaking  after  the  manner  of  men)  abso- 
lutely independent  of  the  other  two.    Yet  you 
say,  (p.  92.)  "  The  Logos  is  really  and  verily 
"  divine,  self- existent,  uncaused,   immutable 
"  in  himself y    Now,  I  suppose,  the  phrase 
"  in  himself"   must  mean,  as  distinguished 
from,  or  independently  of  the  Father,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost.     If  this  be  true  of  the  Logos,  it 
is  also  true  of  each  of  the  other  Persons.    But 
if  this  be  so,  are  there  not  three  Gods  ? 

I  think  proper  to  state  the  above  considera- 
tion in  this  place,  as  forming  one  of  my  diffi- 
culties with  respect  to  your  system.  You  will 
see,  in  a  future  Letter,  that  it  stands  closely 
onnected  with  one  of  your  main  objections  to 


108    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

my  doctrine ;  and  that  until  this  difficulty  is 
removed,  your  objection  must  be  considered 
as  divested  of  the  greater  part,  if  not  the  whole, 
of  its  force. 

III.  In  my  "  Letters  on  Unitarianism,"  I 
had  urged  the  following  query — "  If  the  se- 
"  cond  Person  of  the  Trinity  is  not  to  be  dis- 
"  tinguished  by  the  title  of  Son,  what  is  his 
"  distinguishing  title  ?  By  what  appropriate 
"  name  are  we  to  know  him  as  distinguished 
u  from  the  other  Persons?" 

In  answer  to  this  question,  you  say,  the  term 
Logos  is  the  title  for  which  I  inquire.  You 
declare  your  full  belief  that  the  Logos  is,  and, 
of  course,  ever  was,  God,  as  such.  That  this 
term  is  a  title  expressive  of  the  Divine  and 
eternal  nature  of  the  Second  Person.  "  Here, 
"  then,"  you  say,  "  is  a  name  for  the  second 
"  distinction  of  the  Trinity,  as  such,  which  is 
"  of  apostolic  authority — of  inspired  origin." 

I  am  not,  my  dear  Sir,  by  any  means  satis- 
fied with  this  answer.  I  do  not,  indeed,  deny 
that  Logos  is  a  scriptural  term  ;  or  that  it  is  a 
title  expressive  of  true  and  proper  Divinity, 
and  consequently  of  eternity.  But  I  am  con- 
strained to  deny  that  your  representation  of 
this  matter  either  relieves  any  difficulty,  or 
solves  my  question  in  a  manner  which  can  be 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  109 

deemed  at  all  satisfactory.  In  support  of  this 
denial,  I  beg  your  attention  to  the  following 
considerations. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  the  term  Logos,  or 
Word,  though  repeatedly  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  to  designate  the  Saviour,  does  by 
no  means  appear  to  be  the  favourite  expres- 
sion, if  I  may  so  speak,  of  the  inspired  writers, 
to  point  out  his  personal  and  distinctive  glory. 
It  is  employed  only  a  few  times,  and  almost 
exclusively  by  the  apostle  John,  with  this 
meaning.  Whereas  the  term  Son,  occurs  with 
a  frequency  and  a  tenderness  which  shew  that 
it  is  the  chosen  expression  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  to  convey  the  idea  of  his  closest  and  most 
endearing  relation  to  the  Father. 

2.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  term  Logos,  or 
Word,  is  quite  as  expressive  of  derivation  and 
posteriority  as  the  term  Son  can  be  said  to 
be ;  and  quite  as  liable  to  objection  on  this  ac- 
count. I  may  resort  to  the  same  mode  of  meta- 
physical reasoning  with  respect  to  this  title,  to 
which  you  resort  in  reference  to  the  title  of 
Son :  and  if  so,  I  should  say,  the  term  Word 
signifies  something  tittered  or  spoken.  But  the 
speaker  must  be  conceived  of  as  always  exist- 
ing before  the  word  spoken  by  him.  Therefore 
to  speak  of  an  eternal  Word,  is  a  contradic- 
K 


110         TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

tion  in  terms.     I  do  not  admit  this  method  of 
reasoning ;  but  it  is  your  method.    And  if  you 
object  to  the  term  Son,  as  expressive  of  an  eter- 
nal relation,  on  this  ground,  I  see  not  but  that 
you  must,  on  precisely  the  same  principle,  dis- 
card the  term  Word,  as  designating  an  eternal 
and  necessary  Person  of  the  adorable  Trinity. 
3.  The  term  Logos,  or  Word,  though  evi- 
dently applied  in  scripture   to  the  Divine  and 
eternal  nature  of  Christ,  is  certainly  not  ex- 
pressive, so  far  as  we  can  discern,  of  any  close 
and  endearing  relation  to  either  of  the  other 
Persons.     The  idea  of  relation  between  the 
Persons  of  the  blessed  Trinity,  as  I  before  in- 
timated, has  generally  been  considered  as  es- 
sential to  that  perfect  unity  which  the  scrip- 
tures every  where  represent  as  existing  in  the 
eternal  Godhead.     It  was  long  ago  observed 
by  Calvin,  as  I  had  occasion  to  notice  in  a  pre- 
ceding Letter,  (nor  was  it   an  idea  by  any 
means  confined  to  him)  that  by  Persons  in  the 
Godhead,  we  mean  subsistences  ineffably  re- 
lated to  each  other,  and  yet  each  distinguished 
from  the  rest  by  a  peculiar  and  incommunica- 
ble property.  Now,  I  ask,  which  of  the  terms, 
Word,  or  Father,  is  most  expressive  of  such  in- 
timate and  endearing  relation?  Which  of  them 
is  most  frequently  brought  forward  in  such 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    Ill 

connections  as  appear  intended  to  be  expres- 
sive of  this  relation  to  the  other  Persons.  The 
answer  is  obvious.  Where  the  term  Word  is 
employed  to  express  this  relation  once,  I  had 
almost  said  the  term  Son  is  employed  for  that 
purpose  fifty  times.  Indeed,  I  recollect  but  a 
single  instance  in  all  the  New  Testament,  in 
which  the  term  Word  is  introduced  in  a  man- 
ner which  directly  marks  the  relation  of  Per- 
sons in  a  Trinity  ;  and  that  is  in  the  celebrated 
passage,  1  John  v.  7.  which  I  have  reason  to 
believe  you  do  not  consider  as  genuine  scrip- 
ture. But  in  how  many  instances  the  term 
Son  is  introduced  to  express  this  most  intimate 
and  essential  union,  I  need  not  say  to  those 
who  are  familiar  with  the  Bible. 

4.  I  object  to  the  allegation  that  the  term 
Word,  is  more  strictly  expressive  of  a  divine 
and  eternal  nature  than  that  of  Son  ;  because, 
in  sundry  places,  they  are  used  in  a  manner 
which  evinces  that  they  are  of  the  same  im- 
port as  to  this  point.  It  is  said,  in  1  Timothy 
hi.  16,  that  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh  ; 
in  John  i.  14,  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh 
and  dwelt  among  us ;  and  it  is  also  said  in 
Romans  viii.  3,  that  God  sent  his  own  Son  in 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh.  These  parallel 
passages,  I  should  think,  would  naturally  lead 


112         TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

us  to  conclude,  that  there  was  no  reason  to  con- 
sider the  term  Word  as  expressive  of  a  Divine 
and  eternal  nature,  and  the  term  Son  as  ex- 
pressive of  something  inferior.  On  the  con- 
trary they  evidently  appear  to  me  to  mark 
identity  of  nature  and  character.  Again ;  we 
are  told  that  the  Word  was  in  the  beginning 
with  God ',  and  was  God ;  and  that  all  things 
iv ere  made  by  him,  and  that  without  him  was 
not  any  thing  made  that  was  made.  And  in 
like  manner,  we  are  informed,  Hebrews  L  that 
by  the  Son  the  worlds  were  made  ;  that  he  laid 
the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  that  the 
heavens  are  the  work  of  his  hands.  From 
these  and  similar  passages,  I  infer  that  Son 
and  Word  are  terms  equally  expressive,  not 
indeed  of  relation,  but  certainly  of  Divine  and 
eternal  character. 

IV.  I  object  to  the  manner  in  which  you 
speak  of  the  opinion,  that  the  Son  of  God  ap- 
peared to  the  Patriarchs,  &c.  under  the  old 
dispensations.  You  do  not,  indeed,  explicitly 
deny  that  Christ  did  thus  appear  to  the  fathers 
of  the  ancient  church ;  but  you  evidently  draw 
it  into  question,  and  intimate  a  strong  doubt 
respecting  it;  (p.  139.)  and,  if  I  do  not  mis- 
take, the  whole  tendency  of  the  general  sys- 
tem which  you  adopt,  in  relation  to  the  Son- 


vNI  t^ 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    113 

ship  of  Christ,  is  to  lead  to  a  denial  of  the 
fact  in  question.  1  have\,long  been  a  firm  be- 
liever in  this  fact ;  and  cannot  deem  it  wholly 
without  importance. 

The  proof  that  Christ  did  appear  to  the  an- 
cient Patriarchs;  that  he  was  the  Jehovah, 
who  led  the  church  in  the  wilderness ;  that  he 
was  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  who  appeared 
on  a  great  variety  of  occasions,  to  instruct, 
warn,  protect,  chastise,  and  guide  his  people, 
especially  prior  to  the  giving  of  his  written 
word  to  be  a  light  to  their  feet,  and  a  lamp  to 
their  path,  appears  to  me  to  be  fairly  contained 
in  a  great  number  of  scriptures,  particularly 
in  Hosea  xii.  4,  5.  in  Acts  vii.  30 — 40,  and  in 
1  Cor.  x.  4.9.  I  cannot  possibly  interpret  these 
scriptures  in  any  other  way,  than  as  plainly 
and  decisively  teaching  the  fact  referred  to. 
And  in  the  same  manner  I  explain  1  Peter  i. 
11.  Searching  what,  or  what  manner  of  time 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did 
signify,  #c.  Here  the  apostle  speaks  of  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  working  in  the  ancient  Jewish 
Prophets,  a  number  of  centuries  before  he  be- 
came incarnate.  And  although  you  seem  to 
quote  this  text  (p.  136.)  for  a  very  different 
purpose,  it  appears  to  me  to  fall  in  entirely 

k2 


114         TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

with  the  fact  which  I  am  now  endeavouring  to 
maintain. 

Accordingly  a  number  of  the  early  christian 
Fathers  unequivocally  assert  this  fact.  Irenseus 
says,  "Jesus  Christ  was  the  God  who  interro- 
gated Adam  ;  who  conferred  with  Noah,  and 
gave  him  the  dimensions  of  the  Ark;  who 
spake  to  Abraham  ;  who  brought  destroying 
judgments  on  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  ;  who 
directed  Jacob  in  his  journey,  and  addressed 
Moses  out  of  the  burning  bush  at  HorebP 
And  Tertullian  declares — "  We  believe  that 
Christ  was  the  Word,  by  whom  God  made  the 
worlds,  and  who  at  various  times  appeared  to 
the  patriarchs  and  prophets." 

Unitarians  have  generally  thought  it  incum- 
bent on  them  to  shew  that  this  is  a  ground- 
less opinion ;  and  indefatigably  indeed  have 
they  laboured  for  that  purpose ;  well  knowing 
that  the  fact  in  question,  if  established,  would 
be  most  unfriendly  to  their  cause.  I  lament 
that  any  countenance  should  be  given  by  an 
Orthodox  Brother,  to  the  smallest  portion  of 
their  unhallowed  system. 

But  your  remarks  on  this  subject  appear  to 
be  intended  to  bear  particularly  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  eternal  Sonship  of  Christ,  by  showing, 
that  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  insuperable  diffi- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  115 

culties  attend  the  interpretation  of  Hebrews 
i.  1, 2.  God  who  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers 
manners,  spake  unto  the  fathers  by  the  pro* 
phets,  hath,  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto 
us  by  his  Son,  fyc.  You  ask  (p.  139.)  "  Does 
"  this  seem  to  recognize  the  fact,  that  the  Son 
"  of  God  addressed  the  ancients  ?"■  I  answer,  it 
certainly  does  not  deny  it*  The  apostle  does 
not,  I  apprehend,  mean  to  say,  that  the  Fa- 
ther never  spake  by  the  Son  before  /  but  that, 
in  these  last  days,  he  spake  by  him  pecu- 
liarly, i.  e.  more  clearly,  expressly,  and 
openly  than  in  preceding  times.  In  addition 
to  the  scriptures  before  quoted,  we  are  told 
that  Christ  spake  by  the  ancient  prophets. 
1  Peter  i.  11 ;  and  that  he  preached  to  the 
antediluvian  world.  1  Peter  iii.  19.  But  how 
could  he  have  done  either,  if  your  question 
with  respect  to  the  Son  has  any  force  ? 

As  I  have  long  had  some  doubt  whether 
Psalm  ii.  7.  ought  to  be  deemed  a  decisive 
warrant  for  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation, 
I  did  not  assign  it  a  place  among  the  list  of 
texts  produced  for  that  purpose.  But  I  feel 
very  confident,  my  dear  sir,  whatever  may  be 
the  meaning  of  that  passage,  that  your  inter- 
pretation of  it  cannot  stand.  The  passage  in 
question  is  this — /  will  declare  the  decree: 


116    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

The  Lord  hath  said  unto  me,  Thou  art 
my  Son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee. 
You  say,  (p.  121.)  "What  is  the  decree? 
"  why,  plainly  that  which  makes  or  con- 
"  stitutes  him  king."  I  cannot  think  so.  It 
appears  equally  plain  to  me  that  the  seventh 
verse,  though  included  in  the  general  article 
commonly  called  the  decree,  really  makes  no 
part  of  the  decretory  clause,  properly  speak- 
ing ;  but  that  it  rather  refers  to  the  ground  or 
reason  of  the  decree.  I  suppose  the  spirit  of 
it  to  be  exhibited  in  the  following  paraphrase : 
"  Thou  art  my  Son ;  from  eternity  have  I  be- 
"  gotten  thee :  therefore,  ask  of  me,  and  I  will 
"  give  thee  the  heathen,  &c."  This  interpre- 
tation, if  admitted,  will  of  course,  set  aside 
your  first  criticism. 

You  say  further,  (p.  121)  "  Surely  no  other 
6i  generation  of  the  Son  is  intimated  here,  but 
u  his  exaltation  to  the  dignity  of  King  and 
H  Lord.  And  it  is  in  exact  consonance  with 
"  this,  that  Peter  explains  the  very  passage 
"  in  question,  in  Acts  13 ;  accommodating  it 
"  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  was  the 
"  very  circumstance  that  commenced  his  ele- 
"  vation  to  the  throne  of  supreme  dominion." 
But,  in  reply,  I  ask,  What  are  we  to  consider 
as  the  date  of  this  decree  ?   I  do  not  ask  when 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.         117 

it  was  first  published  by  the  Son ;  but  when 
are  we  to  consider  it  as  uttered  by  the  Father 
to  the  Son  ?  When  the  councils  of  peace  were 
arranged ;  that  is,  from  eternity  ?  or  when  the 
Psalm  was  written ;  that  is  more  than  a  thou- 
sand years  before  the  incarnation  ?  or  at  the 
time  referred  to  at  the  beginning  of  the  Psalm, 
that  is,  when  the  heathen  raged;  in  other 
words,  when  the  Saviour  was  crucified  ?  If 
we  adopt  any  one  of  these  dates  (and  one  of 
them  I  think  we  must  adopt)  your  interpreta- 
tion, it  appears  to  me,  of  course,  falls.  Be- 
cause the  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  you 
suppose  to  have  been  the  day  spoken  of, — the 
day  on  which  he  was  begotten — was  subse- 
quent to  all  of  them;  and  therefore,  it 
could  not  be  said,  upon  your  principle — This 
day  have  I  begotten  thee.  The  Psalm,  as  you 
justly  say,  is  prediction  ;  and  evidently  refers 
to  the  time  of  the  crucifixion;  that  is,  the  pub- 
lication of  the  decree  refers  to  that  event. 

If  then  the  clause,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this 
day  have  I  begotten  thee,  be  a  part  of  the  de- 
cree, it  is  not  true,  (if  the  Sonship  of  Christ 
arise  from  his  resurrection,)  that  he  was  be- 
gotten on  the  day  referred  to,  that  is,  on  the 
day  of  his  crucifixion.  His  Sonship,  then,  evi- 
dently existed  previously  to  his  resurrection^ 


118    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

and,  of  course,  was  not  constituted  by  it.  And 
this,  I  think,  furnishes  a  plain  index  to  the 
meaning  of  the  apostle,  when  he  applies  this 
passage  in  the  second  Psalm,  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  as  he  does,  Acts  xiii.  32,  33 ; 
and  again,  Romans  i.  4.  His  resurrection  was 
not  the  ground,  but  the  proof  of  his  Sonship; 
— a  glorious  triumphant  proof  of  it ;  and  be- 
cause a  proof  of  his  Sonship,  of  course,  a  proof 
of  his  Divinity ;  the  very  proof  to  which  he 
referred  his  enemies,  Luke  xxii.  69.  If  this 
be  the  interpretation  of  the  passage,  your's,  of 
necessity,  if  I  understand  it,  must  be  rejected. 

I  am  inclined  to  the  opinion,  that  the  true 
and  proper  date  of  the  decree  itself,  as  uttered 
by  the  Father,  is  in  the  everlasting  counsels  of 
peace.  If  so,  the  Sonship  referred  to,  is  that 
incomprehensible  and  eternal  relation  to  the 
Father  for  which  I  contend.  And,  accordingly, 
the  great  body  of  the  early  Fathers,  and  of  the 
orthodox  divines,  for  many  centuries  unani- 
mously adopted  that  interpretation.  But,  I 
repeat,  whether  we  consider  the  expression, 
this  day,  as  referring  to  eternity  or  not,  in 
either  case,  your  construction  of  the  passage, 
must,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  be  abandoned. 

Dr.  Hopkins7 s  view  of  the  passage  is  so  ju- 
dicious and  clear  that  I  take  pleasure  in  quoting 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    119 

a  paragraph  from  his  system.  "  When  David 
"  speaks  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  represents 
"  the  Father  as  saying—  Thou  art  my  Son, 
"  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee,  so  long  before 
"  his  incarnation,  the  idea  which  most  natu- 
"  rally  arises  in  the  mind  from  this  is,  that 
"  there  was  then  such  a  person  as  the  Son, 
"  who  did  at  that  time  declare  the  decree  by 
u  the  mouth  of  David;  and  not  that  there 
"  should,  in  some  future  time,  be  a  Son  be- 
*f  gotten,  who  should  then  declare  the  decree. 
•'<  I  will  declare  the  decree:  The  Lord  said 
"  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have 
»•  I  begotten  thee.  It  is  very  unnatural,  and 
"  contrary  to  all  propriety  of  speech  to  sup- 
u  pose,  This  day  have  I  begotten  thee,  means 
•*  I  will  beget  thee  in  some  future  time ;  and 
"  that  the  Son  should  be  made  to  declare  the 
*'  decree  long  before  any  such  person  existed, 
«  and  when  there  was,  in  fact,  no  such  Son. 
"  The  decree  which  the  Son  declares,  is  not 
"  that  declaration,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day 
"  have  I  begotten  thee  ;  but  what  follows — • 
"  Ask  of  me,  and  I  will  give  thee  the  heathen 
"  for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost 
u  parts  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession.  Thou 
"  shalt  break  them  in  pieces  with  a  rod  of  iron, 
fyc.     This  day,  that  is,  now,  not  in  time 


a 


120    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

"  which  is  passed,  or  which  is  to  come ;  for 
*  with  God  there  is  no  succession,  no  time 
u  passed  or  to  come ;  but  he  exists,  as  we  may 
"  say,  in  one  eternal,  unsuccessive  now.  There- 
"  fore  when  we  speak  of  an  eternal,  immanent 
"  act,  it  is  most  properly  expressed  thus,  This 
u  day  or  now,  have  I  begotten  thee.  This, 
"  therefore,  is  the  sense  in  which  the  best  di- 
**  vines  have  generally  understood  it." 

"  St.  Paul  cites  this  passage  as  being  illus- 
"  trated  and  verified  in  the  resurrection  of 
"  Jesus  Christ,  Acts  xiii.  33.  But  he  cannot 
"  mean,  that  he,  by  the  resurrection,  became 
«  the  Son  of  God,  and  was  then  begotten;  for 
"  he  had  this  title  before  his  resurrection.  His 
"  meaning  is  explained  by  himself  in  the  epis- 
"  tie  to  the  Romans.  Declared  to  be  the 
"  Son  of  God  by  his  resurrection  from  the 
H  dead.  Rom.  i.  4.  That  is,  this  was  a  fresh 
"  and  open  manifestation  and  declaration,  that 
*$  he  was  indeed  what  had  been  often  asserted, 
"  and  what  he  always  was,  the  only  begotten 
«  Son  of  God."* 

Do  you  ask,  why  it  is  that  this  passage 
(Psalm  ii.  7.)  seems  to  be  applied  in  scripture 
to  so  many  different  events  in  the  Saviour's 
history  and  work? — to  his  investiture  with 

*  System  of  Doctrines,  vol.  i.  p.  439. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    121 

office , — his  resurrection, — his  exaltation,  fyc.  ? 
Do  you  say,  that  this  looks  very  much  like 
giving  countenance  to  the  idea  of  his  Sonship 
being  founded  on  several  things  ?  I  answer,  I 
think  not.  On  my  principle,  the  text  has  an 
appropriate  application,  whenever  the  per- 
sonal dignity,  and  glory  of  the  Redeemer  are  in 
question.  And  thus  the  inspired  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  seem  to  have  considered  it ; 
and  have  quoted  it  accordingly,  Christ  was 
qualified  and  appointed  to  he  Mediator,  be- 
cause he  was  previously  the  Son  of  God  ;  he 
was  raised  again  from  the  dead,  because  he 
was  the  Son  of  God  ;  he  was  exalted  to  great 
authority  and  honour  in  his  Mediatorial  capa- 
city, because  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  In  short, 
if,  on  the  one  hand,  we  consider  all  these  facts 
and  circumstances,  as  so  many  grounds  of  his 
Sonship ;  as  so  many  means  by  which  he  was 
made  Son,  or  as  furnishing  so  many  reasons 
why  he  was  so  called  ;  then  I  should  really  be 
at  a  loss  to  say,  how  the  phrase  this  day  could 
with  propriety  be  applied  to  several  times  and 
events.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  consi- 
der the  various  events  referred  to,  as  exhibit- 
ing evidences  of  his  Divine  and  eternal  Son- 
ship  ;  if  we  suppose  that  all  these  great  things 
were  done  because  he  was  the  Son  of  God  5 

L 


122         TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C 

and  if  we  consider  the  phrase  this  day  as  re- 
ferring to  eternity,  and  as  expressive  of  the 
eternal  purpose  of  the  Father,  then  not  only 
the  original  text,  itself,  but  also  all  its  applica- 
tions in  the  New  Testament,  seem  to  me  to  be 
naturally  and  easily  explicable.  If  this  ground 
be  taken,  I  see  not  but  that  it  is  proper,  and 
equally  proper,  to  apply  the  prediction  re- 
corded by  the  Psalmist,  to  every  instance  in 
which  the  Saviour's  glory  is  under  considera- 
tion :  to  every  instance  in  which  the  Father 
was  pleased  to  manifest  that  he  regarded  him, 
and  was  disposed  to  treat  him,  as  his  only  be- 
gotten and  eternal  Son. 

You  appear  to  lay  no  little  stress  for  the 
support  of  your  doctrine,  on  Luke  i.  35.  The 
Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ; 
therefore  also  that  Holy  Thing  which  shall 
be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God. 
I  am  free  to  confess,  that  the  most  plausible 
argument  which  you  have  deduced  from  scrip- 
ture, is  drawn  from  this  passage.  This  argu- 
ment, however,  even  if  I  were  at  a  loss  for  an 
answer  to  it  satisfactory  to  myself,  would  not 
shake  my  belief  in  the  eternal  Sonship  of  the 
Saviour ;  because  I  think  I  find  the  doctrine 
so  clearly  and  frequently  taught  in  scripture, 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.         123 

that  a  single  passage  of  dubious  construction, 
could  not  be  reasonably  allowed  to  countervail 
the  weight  of  a  number  decisive  in  their  cha- 
racter. But  I  do  not  find  myself  in  this  situa- 
tion. After  all  that  you  have  said  to  prove 
that  this  text  makes  the  Saviour's  miraculous 
conception  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin,  the 
ground  of  the  title  Son  of  God,  I  cannot  ad- 
mit that  you  have  either  established  your  own 
position,  or  impaired  the  solidity  of  mine.  My 
reasons  for  entertaining  this  opinion  are  the 
following. 

(1.)  In  the  first  place,  if  your  interpretation 
of  this  passage  be  the  true  one,  then  the  Holy 
Ghost,  or  the  Third  Person  of  the  Trinity, 
is  the  real  Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  not  the  First  Person,  as  is  commonly  sup- 
posed, and  as  the  scriptures  seem  plainly  to 
assert.  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon 
thee,  Sec.  Here  the  expression  is  clear  and 
unequivocal.  If,  then,  the  Sonship  of  Christ  is 
referable  to  this  event,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  in- 
dubitably his  Father.  But  how  comes  it  to 
pass  that  the  First  Person  of  the  Trinity  is  al- 
ways spoken  of  as  the  Father,  and  not  the 
Third;  and  that  the  Saviour  himself,  in  so 
many  instances,  distinguishes  between  his  Fa- 
ther and  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  he  and  his 


124    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

Father  will  send  ?  I  have  never  been  satisfied 
with  any  attempt  to  solve  this  difficulty  that  I 
have  met  with :  and  until  it  is  solved,  I  can 
by  no  means  fall  in  with  your  exposition  of  the 
text  in  question. 

(2.)  The  title  Son  of  God  was  applied  to 
Christ  long  before  his  miraculous  conception, 
and  his  birth  according  to  the  flesh.  To  say 
the  least,  more  than  a  thousand  years  before 
he  was  bom  of  a  woman,  he  received  it  fami- 
liarly. David  said — Kiss  the  Son,  lest  he  be 
angry  fyc.  JLgur  said,  What  is  his  name, 
and  what  is  his  So?i's  name,  if  thou  canst 
tell?  Besides,  if  his  temporal  birth  be  the 
reason,  emphatically,  why  he  is  called  the  Son 
of  God,  I  must  think  that  there  is  a  serious 
inconsistency  in  assigning  not  only  another 
reason,  for  this  title,  as  you  do,  but  another 
primary  reason.  But  as  this  was  mentioned 
before,  I  shall  not  further  dwell  on  it  here. 

(3.)  My  third  reason  for  objecting  to  your 
interpretation  of  this  passage  is,  that  the  birth 
in  question  was  the  birth  of  our  Lord  "  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh."  Would  not  this 
expression,  so  frequently  repeated  in  scripture, 
be  a  strange  one,  if  the  Son  had  really  and 
properly  speaking  no  other  birth  ?  What  does 
it  mean  ?  Do  we  ever  say  of  one  of  our  fellow 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.         125 

men  that  he  is  the  son  of  such  a  person  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh  ?  But  if  there  be  another  and 
higher  sense  in  which  he  is  the  Son  of  God, 
that  is,  according  to  his  Divine  nature,  then 
this  language  is  not  only  intelligible,  but  also 
appropriate  and  happy.  As  this  thought, 
however,  was  adverted  to  in  another  connec- 
tion, in  the  preceding  Letter,  I  shall  not  fur- 
ther enlarge  upon  it  at  present. 

(4.)  Again ;  I  object,  because,  if  the  Son 
of  God  were  so  called  on  account  of  his  miracu- 
lous conception,  then  he  would  be  in  no  other 
sense  Son,  than  creatures  are.  Adam  was 
miraculously  produced ;  so  were  Angels.  But 
we  are  told,  Hebrews  i.  5.  that  his  Sonship  is 
above  that  of  angels ;  above  that  of  the  most 
exalted  creatures. 

(5.)  My  fifth  reason  for  declining  to  receive 
your  interpretation  of  this  passage  is,  that  I  think 
a  very  different  mode  of  expounding  it,  more 
consistent  with  itself,  as  well  as  more  consistent 
with  the  tenor  of  scripture  on  this  subject,  may 
be  found. 

Justin  Martyr  seems  to  have  been  of  the 
opinion,  that  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  power  in 
this  text,  nothing  else  can,  or  ought  to  be  un- 
derstood, than  the  Divine  nature  of  the  Son  of 
God  himself.  And,  indeed,  that  it  was  by  h  is  own 
L  2 


126         TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C 

act  and  will  that  the  assumption  of  the  human 
nature  took  place,  is  certain.  If  the  sense  of 
Justin  were  admitted,  all  difficulty  would,  of 
course,  vanish.  Then  the  meaning  would  be 
"  Because  this  Holy  Child  is  born  in  conse- 
"  quence  of  the  Son  of  God  assuming  into 
"  union  with  himself  the  human  nature,  there- 
"  fore  he  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God." 
This  would  be  assigning  the  most  obvious  and 
satisfactory  reason  for  the  appellation  in  ques- 
tion. Yet  I  am  not  willing  to  take  such  a  liberty 
with  the  language  of  scripture,  and  therefore, 
do  not  adopt  as  my  own  this  exposition  of  the 
venerable  Martyr.  I  merely  give  it  a  passing 
notice,  as  a  plan  of  explanation  which  rests  on 
no  mean  authority ;  and  which,  if  admitted, 
removes  all  objection. 

But  where  is  the  difficulty  of  adopting  the 
common  orthodox  interpretation  ?  According 
to  this,  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ 
was  the  evidence  that  a  union  was  formed  be- 
tween the  Son  of  God  and  the  human  nature. 
The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and 
the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow 
thee  ;  therefore  that  Holy  Thing  which  shall 
be  born  of  thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God. 
That  is,  "  as,  by  this  miraculous  conception, 
"  this  holy  child  has  become  one  with  the  Son 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  127 

"  of  God,  therefore  the  God-man  thus  consti- 
"  tuted  a  distinct  Person,  shall  he  called  the 
"  Son  of  God :"  Or,  "  This  child  shall  be 
"  so  called,  because  of  its  intimate  union,  in 
"  one  Person,  with  Him  who  is  the  Son  of 
¥  God." 

If  this  interpretation  be  admitted,  it  solves 
every  difficulty  at  once,  and,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  in  the  most  natural,  simple  and  easy  man- 
ner. Perhaps  something  plausible  might  be 
said  in  favour  of  that  sense  of  the  conjunction 
5to,  which  has  been  contended  for  by  some  of 
the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  Son- 
ship,  and  which  you  so  strenuously  oppose. 
But  I  do  not  plead  for  any  thing  of  this  kind. 
My  interpretation  does  not  stand  in  need  of 
it.  Nay,  if  I  am  not  deceived,  it  stands  upon 
far  more  solid  ground  without  such  aid. 

Neither  have  I  occasion  to  avail  myself  of 
any  advantage  which  might  be  derived  from  a 
new  translation  of  the  verb  xateuj&ou.  I  am 
willing  it  should  stand  with  the  sense  which 
our  translators  have  given  it;  which  I  believe, 
with  you,  is  the  most  common  and  correct 
sense.  The  advantage  of  the  exposition  which 
I  have  given  is,  that,  by  adopting  it,  nothing  is 
forced  or  perverted,  but  all  is  consistent  and 
natural. 


128         TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C 


I  am,  further,  constrained  to  object  entirely 
to  your  gloss  of  another  passage,  which,  next 
to  that  of  which  I  have  just  been  speaking, 
appears  to  me  among  the  most  plausible  you 
have  offered  in  favour  of  your  opinion,  I  re- 
fer to  Hebrews  i.  4,  5.  Being  made  so  much 
better  than  the  angels,  as  he  hath,  by  inheri- 
tance, obtained  a  more  excellent  name  than 
they,  For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he 
at  any  time,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  clay  have 
I  begotten  thee  ?  Here,  you  say,  (p.  126) 
ft  The  name  obtained  by  inheritance  cannot 
ft  be  literally  understood ;  for  then  it  would 
ft  necessarily  imply  the  death  of  the  Father, 
"  in  consequence  of  which  his  title  descended 
ft  to  his  Son."  I  am  led  to  suspect,  my  dear 
Sir,  that  I  do  not  understand  your  meaning 
in  this  remark.  If  I  do,  I  am  unable  to  per- 
ceive its  force,  or  even  its  application.  The 
title  of  Son  never  was  the  title  of  the  Father, 
and,  of  course,  could  not  descend  from  him. 
But  if  it  were  otherwise,  is  it  not  common  for 
a  son  to  inherit  his  father's  name,  from  the 
moment  that  he  bears  any  name  at  all,  and 
while  his  father  is  still  living  ?  Nor  did  I  ever 
hear,  until  now,  that  the  death  of  him  from 
whom  an  inheritance  is  obtained,  must  always 
take  place,  before  the  inheritance  can  be  ob- 


TESTIMONY  OP  SCRIPTURE,  &C.         129 

tained.  If  it  had  been  so,  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  could  never  have  been  heir  in  any  sense. 
But  I  have  no  idea  that  Hebrews  ix.  16,  has 
any  such  meaning.  Its  proper  signification,  no 
doubt,  is,  what  Macknight  makes  it  to  be— 
"  For  where  there  is  a  covenant,  there  is  a 
•'•'  necessity  that  the  death  of  the  appointed 
f*  Sacrifice  be  brought  in." 

Again ;  you  remark,  (p.  126)  that  xexfypo- 
vouyjxev,  which  our  translators  have  rendered 
obtained  by  inheritance,  is  improperly  trans- 
lated ;  that  it  signifies  to  get  or  acquire,  by 
any  means.  And  you  then  ask,  "  How  could 
"  the  Son  obtain  a  better  title  than  the  an- 
"  gels  ?  If  he  were  Son  eternally,  did  he  ob- 
"  tain  a  filiation  ?  And  could  the  prophecies 
"  quoted,  speak  of  his  filiation  as  future  ?" 
That  ttie  primary  sense  of  xTi'/jpovousa  is  to  in- 
herit, or  to  obtain  by  inheritance,  as  our 
translation  has  it,  and  that  it  often  undoubtedly 
has  that  meaning,  I  apprehend  is  too  clear  to 
be  disputed.  I  appeal  to  all  orthodox  Lexico- 
graphers and  Commentators  that  have  fallen 
in  my  way  for  authority.  You  seem  to  think 
that  the  application  of  this  word  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  Israelites  obtained  the  land 
of  Canaan,  from  its  heathen  inhabitants,  is 
decisive  of  the  fact,  that  it  cannot  mean  what 


130    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

it  strictly  imported  by  the  term  inheritance, 
But  I  cannot  accede  to  the  conclusiveness  of 
this  illustration.  I  think  the  Israelites  did, 
properly,  inherit  that  land  in  the  strict  sense 
of  the  word.  They  certainly  obtained  it  in 
virtue  of  a  grant  made  to  their  illustrious  an- 
cestor, the  father  of  the  faithful,  longbefore  de- 
ceased ;  and  even  if  this  illustration  should  fail, 
it  would  be  easy  to  shew,  that  they  received  it 
from  the  hands,  and  through  a  promise,  of  their 
heavenly  Father,  and  that  in  a  most  peculiar 
manner.  It  may,  to  say  the  least,  then,  signify  to 
inherit  m  this  place.  Indeed  I  have  not  hap- 
pened to  meet  with  a  single  orthodox  inter- 
preter, excepting  yourself,  who  does  not  thus 
render  it.  But  if  this  be  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  as  I  contend  it  is,  it  coincides  exactly 
with  the  doctrine  for  which  I  plead.  The  im- 
port of  the  4th  verse  will  then  be,  that  the 
Son  in  virtue  of  his  eternal  generation,  inhe- 
rited from  the  Father  the  exalted  name  of  Son 
of  God; — Son  in  a  peculiar  sense ; — a  sense 
infinitely  above  that  in  which  the  name  of 
Son  can  be  applied  to  any  creature,  even  to 
the  most  exalted  angels. 

But  if  any  should  hesitate  about  attaching 
this  sense  to  the  word  inherit,  the  passage 
may  be  interpreted  otherwise,  in  full  con- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    131 

sistency  with  my  creed,  and  without  any  of 
the  difficulties  which  appear  to  me  to  attend 
your  interpretation.  If  the  exposition  given 
in  a  preceding  page,  of  Luke  i.  35  be  correct, 
then  it  follows,  that  the  title  Son  of  God,  be- 
longs to  the  Saviour  both  as  eternally  begotten 
of  the  Father,  and  as  a, proper  name  of  the  Mes- 
siah, as  such,  as  Immanuel,  or  God  incarnate 
for  our  salvation.  In  both  these  respects  he  may 
be  properly  said  to  have  obtained  the  name 
Son,  by  inheritance.  In  the  latter  capacity, 
he  is,  officially,  heir  of  all  things  ;  having 
all  power  delegated  to  him  in  heaven  and  on 
earth,  being  made  head  over  all  things  to  the 
church  ;  and  being  called  Son,  in  consequence 
of  this  official  character.  In  the  former  capa- 
city, he  is  originally,  and  by  divine  right, 
heir,  or  possessor  of  all  things,  and  has  the 
name  of  Son  in  virtue  of  his  incommunicable 
and  eternal  relation  to  the  Father.  This 
being  so,  I  perceive,  upon  my  plan,  no  pe- 
culiar difficulty  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
passage  in  question. 

What  you  say  on  1  Cor.  xv.  28,  as,  in  your 
view,  wholly  irreconcileable  with  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  generation,  admits,  in  my  opinion, 
of  an  easy  answer.  If  my  interpretation  of 
Luke  i.  35.  be  admitted,  then,  it  follows  that 


132    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

the  name  Son  of  God  is  the  proper  name  be 
stowed,  by  Divine  direction,  on  the  august 
God-man  constituted  by  a  union  of  the  humai 
nature  with  the  Son  of  God ;  in  other  words, 
the  title  originally  proper  to  Him  who  wi 
essentially  and  eternally  the  Son  of  God,  i$ 
used  to  designate  the  office  of  this  God-man, 
Mediator.  Now,  although,  as  eternal  Son,  h< 
is  not,  and  never  was,  subject  to  the  Father 
yet,  as  Mediator,  he  is,  and  ever  will  be.  At 
the  end  of  the  world,  indeed,  he  will  deliver  up 
a  certain  kingdom  to  God  even  the  Father ; 
viz.  that  kingdom  to  which  there  is  a  reference, 
when  it  is  said — All  power  is  given  unto  me  in 
heaven  and  on  earth.  Matt,  xxviii.  18. — And 
gave  him  to  be  Head  over  all  things  to  the 
church.  Ephes.  i.  22 :  That  complex  kingdom, 
which  includes  all  the  affairs  of  this  world,  as 
well  as  principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly 
places.  When  the  end  cometh,  this  kingdom 
will  be  delivered  up;  but,  as  mediatorial  Head 
of  the  Redeemed,  over  whom  he  will  reign,  to 
all  eternity,  in  his  glorified  human  body,  and 
to  whom  he  will  be  the  everlasting  medium  of 
all  gracious  communications  of  light,  and  glory, 
and  blessedness : — In  this  capacity  I  apprehend 
he  will  always  be  officially  subject,  and  the 
Triune  Jehovah  be  forever  all  in  all. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  133 

But  it  really  appears  to  me,  my  dear  Sir, 
that  there  is  no  more  difficulty  in  expounding 
the  passage  under  consideration  in  accordance 
with  my  doctrine,  than  in  consistency  with 
your  own.  You  suppose  that  the  Logos  is  a 
truly  Divine  and  eternal  Person;  and  that 
the  incarnate  Logos  is  the  u  Son  of  God,"  in 
the  language  of  scripture.  Yet  you  seem  to 
admit  that  this  Son,  according  to  the  apostle's 
declaration,  will  be  subject  to  the  Father,  Is 
there  not  as  much  objection  to  this  doctrine 
as  there  can  be  to  mine  ?  I  acknowledge  my- 
self unable  to  perceive  any  difference  as  to  the 
point  of  the  difficulty  which  you  have  sug 
gested.  What  interpretation  do  you,  on  your 
principles,  give  of  this  passage?  Will  the 
eternal  Logos  continue,  after  delivering  up 
the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father,  to  be 
subject  to  him  that  did  put  all  things  under 
him  ?  You  must,  of  course,  answer,  '*(  He 
will ;"  and  you  would,  probably,  further  say, 
that  this  mode  of  expression  was  equally  jus- 
tifiable, and  to  be  interpreted  on  the  sam€ 
principles,  with  Acts  xx.  28,  in  which  the 
church  is  represented  as  purchased  tvith  the 
blood  of  God.  Be  it  so.  The  same  principle, 
and  the  same  illustration,  with  scarcely  any 
M 


134       -Testimony  of  scripture,  &c. 

change  of  language,  will  equally  answer  my 
purpose. 

You  say,  (p.  162)  "  It  has  hitherto  been  a 
u  very  severe  task  for  those  who  believe  in 
"  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation,  and,  of 
'<  course,  understand  the  term  Son  of  God  as 
"  in  itself  implying  a  nature  divine,  to  explain 
"  those  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
u  speak  of  the  Son  as  not  knowing  the  day 
"  nor  the  hour  when  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
"  salem  would  take  place ;  Mark  xiii.  32 ; 
u  which  represent  the  Father  as  greater  than 
"  the  Son;  John  xiv.  28 ;  and  which  speak  of 
u  God  as  exalting  him  above  every  creature  ; 
"  Philippians  ii.  9."  Here  again,  my  dear 
Sir,  I  feel  constrained  to  say,  that  I  am  not 
able  to  perceive  that  it  is  in  the  least  degree 
a  more  "  severe  task"  for  me  than  for  you  to 
interpret  these  passages.  You  believe  that 
the  Son  of  God,  of  whom  these  things  are  as- 
serted, is  constituted  by  the  union  of  the  Di- 
vine and  eternal  Logos  with  human  nature. 
I  believe  that  the  Son  of  God,  who  spoke  thus, 
in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  was  so  called,  because 
the  Divine  and  eternal  Son  of  God  was  united 
to  man;  and  that  this  complex  Person  had 
given  to  him,  by  divine  direction,  the  name 
before  proper  to  his    divine  and  eternal  na- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  135 

ture.  Here,  then,  according  to  the  creed  of 
both,  there  is  a  divine  nature  mysteriously 
united  to  a  human  nature,  constituting  one 
Christ  or  Messiah,  who  holds  a  place  of  offi- 
cial subordination  to  the  Father,  and  con- 
cerning whom  these  declarations  are  made. 
On  my  principle,  I  find  no  great  difficulty 
in  interpreting  them ;  and  I  presume  that  you 
find,  on  yours,  quite  as  little.  We  each  of 
us  believe  the  title  Son,  in  these  passages,  to 
be  a  proper  name.  You  say  that  this  title  pri- 
marily indicates  the  inferior  nature  united  to 
the  divine.  I  maintain  that  it  primarily  indi- 
cates the  divine  nature  united  to  the  human. 
But  I  cannot  perceive  that  this  difference 
essentially  affects  the  exposition  to  be  applied 
to  these  and  a  number  of  other  texts  of  scrip- 
ture, which  present  similar  modes  of  expression. 
I  read,  I  acknowledge,  with  some  surprise 
what  you  have  said  on  Colossians  i.  15.  who 
is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  fyc. ;  and  on 
Hebrews  i.  5,  as  adduced  by  Turretine,  in 
support  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  Sonship. 
With  respect  to  the  first  of  these  passages,  you 
remark,  (p.  134)  that  "  the  context  going  im- 
"  mediately  before,  affords  an  easy  solution  of 
u  its  meaning.  In  whom  we  have  redemption 
"  through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of 


136    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

"  our  sins ; — ivho  is  the  image,  §c.  Now 
"  who  is  the  image  ?  He  by  whose  blood  we 
u  have  redemption.  And  who  is  it  that  shed 
u  his  blood  ?  The  preceding  context  tells  us 
"  that  it  was  God's  dear  Son.  Was  it,  then, 
"  the  eternally  begotten  and  c»^equal  Son  that 
* '  shed  his  blood  ?  Or  was  it  the  incarnate 
H  Logos,  i.  e.  the  Messiah,  who  made  atone- 
"  ment  by  suffering ?" — "In  exactly  the  same 
"  strain,"  you  proceed — "  is  the  passage  in 
**  Hebrews.  Who,  (being  the  irradiation  of 
u  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  him, 
<*  and  directing  all  things  by  his  omnipotent 
"  controul)  having  made  expiation  by  himself 
"for  our  sins,  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of 
"  the  majesty  on  high.  Who,  then,  made  ex- 
u  piation  by  suffering  for  our  sins  ?  Surely  the 
u  Messiah,  and  not  the  eternal  Logos.  The 
u  same  Person,  then,  is  the  irradiation  of  the 
"  Father's  glory,  and  his  peculiar  image." 

Although  I  forbore  to  insert  these  texts  in 
the  list  of  direct  scriptural  testimonies  pro- 
duced in  the  preceding  Letter,  it  was  not  be- 
cause I  doubted  whether  they  were  to  my  pur- 
pose ;  but  because  I  considered  others  as  more 
decisive,  and  was  afraid  of  extending  my  re- 
marks to  a  tedious  length.  I  still  think  that 
Turretine  with  good  reason  made  use  of  them 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    139 

respecting  V Peter  i.  11 — Was  it  the  Spirit  of 
the  incarnate  Logos  that  wrought  in  the  an- 
cient Jewish  Prophets,  long  before  he  was  in- 
carnate, and,  of  course,  before  such  a  being, 
strictly  speaking,  existed?  I  beg  you  to  cast 
an  eye  on  Revelation  xix.  13.  And  he  was 
clothed  with  a  vesture  dipped  in  blood  ;  and 
his  name  is  called,  the  word  {Tuoyoc,)  of  God. 
Here  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Messiah, 
in  his  glorified  body,  is  seen  and  described  in 
vision.  But  suppose  I  were  to  ask,  how  is  the 
title  Word  of  God  applied  to  him  ?  Was  the 
Divine,  eternal,  incorporeal  Logos,  as  such, 
clothed  with  a  vesture  dipped  in  blood,  as  ex- 
pressive of  humiliation  and  suffering?  How 
could  he  suffer  at  all,  or  bear  the  insignia  of 
suffering?  I  find  no  difficulty  in  solving  these 
questions  ;  but  on  the  principle  which  appears 
to  be  involved,  and  intended  to  be  urged,  in 
your  query  just  quoted,  I  cannot  see  very  well, 
my  dear  Sir,  how  you  will  answer  them. 

With  respect  to  the  use  which  the  venerable 
Turretine  makes  of  certain  epithets,  which  in 
the  sacred  scriptures  are  combined  with  the 
word  Son,  I  will  offer  only  a  few  passing  re- 
marks. I  forbore  to  introduce  those  epithets 
into  the  list  of  scriptural  testimonies  contained 
in  the  preceding  Letter,  because,  with  respect 


140         TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C 

to  force?  though  I  considered  them  as  of  some 
value,  they  struck  me  as  being  of  secondary 
rather  than  primary  importance.  In  other 
words,  when  we  have  ascertained  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  Sonship  from  other  scriptures,  I  think 
these  strong,  and  frequently  recurring  epithets, 
with  remarkable  aptness  fall  in  with  the  doc- 
trine, and  assist  not  a  little  in  illustrating  and 
confirming  it.  The  epithets  to  which  I  refer 
are  those  which  you  consider  in  your  129th 
and  the  four  following  pages;  viz.  own  (t&og;) 
beloved  (ayanyjtog)  only-begotten  ((xovoyevyjg) 
and  first-born  (7tpcytotoxog.)  I  see,  in  all  these, 
an  admirable  and  beautiful  harmony  with  the 
doctrine  for  which  I  plead,  rather  than  argu- 
ments adapted  a  priori  to  ascertain  and  establish 
it.  And  in  this  point  of  view  I  value  them,  and 
think  that  Turretine  was  right  in  adducing 
them. 

Your  remarks  on  these  epithets,  I  am  con- 
strained to  say,  are  far  from  satisfying  me.  I 
think  you  have  barely  succeeded  in  showing, 
that  they  may  possibly  admit  of  a  different 
sense  from  that  which  the  advocates  of  eternal 
Sonship  usually  attach  to  them.  But  I  am  espe- 
cially dissatisfied  with  one  of  your  criticisms  on 
the  third  of  these  epithets,  viz.  fiovoyevyjg. 
When  you  say,  that  your  "  examination  of  this 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    137 

in  support  of  his  cause,  and  cannot  help  be- 
lieving that  the  more  they  are  impartially  ex- 
amined, the  more  they  will  be  found  to  sup- 
port that  cause.  He  who  is  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God,  the  first  begotten  before  all 
creatures  (as  I  suppose  the  latter  part  of  the 
verse  to  import ;)  he  who  created  all  things  in 
heaven  and  on  earth  ;  he  who  is  before  all 
things,  and  by  whom  all  things  consist; — he 
who  is  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory  and 
the  express  image  of  his  Person,  and  upholds 
all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power — I  say, 
the  Son,  the  first  begotten,  of  whom  all  these 
predicates  are  asserted,  I  am  not  afraid  to  stile 
the  eternal  Son. 

Besides ;  in  reference  to  Heb.  i.  5.  if  Christ, 
as  Son,  does  not  possess  the  same  divine  na- 
ture with  the  Father,  he  cannot  be  the  bright- 
ness of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his 
Person.  It  has  been  often  justly  observed, 
&  that  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory" 
here  is  certainly  not  to  be  understood  of  an  at- 
tribute, or  the  manifestation  of  an  attribute ; 
for  if  so,  the  creation,  the  gospel,  the  graces 
of  his  people,  in  short,  every  thing  whereby 
God  makes  himself  known,  is  "  the  brightness 
of  his  glory."  It  is  evidently  a  title  given  to 
a  Person  ;  and  if  it  does  not  represent  that 
m2 


138         TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C« 

Person,  as  such,  as  partaking  of  the  same  na^ 
lure  with  the  Father,  and  equal  to  him  in  all 
divine  perfections,  I  should  he  at  an  entire 
loss  to  say  what  words  would  express  this  idea 
in  all  its  fulness.  Accordingly  it  is  ohservable 
that  the  inspired  writer  immediately  adds, — 
what  is  certainly  peculiar  to  Divinity — that  he 
upholds  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power. 
And  although,  in  his  general  description,  he 
recognizes  some  of  the  attributes  of  the  Son's 
Mediatorial  character ;  vet  he  introduces 
these,  by  speaking  of  attributes  antecedent  to 
them,  and  which  laid  the  only  adequate  foun- 
dation for  them. 

But  what  I  read  with  particular  surprise  was 
the  question  which  you  ask  concerning  both 
these  texts — "  Was  it,  the  eternally  begotten 
"  and  co-equal  i  Son  that  shed  his  blood  W 
It  surprised  me  the  more,  because  in  the  third 
page  following  you  insist  so  zealously  and 
justly  that  "  designations  originally  descrip- 
<•  tive  merely  of  quality,  rank,  &e.  in  process 
"  of  time,  by  frequent  usage,  became  proper 
{i  names,  so  as  to  be  descriptive  of  the  whole 
«  person  or  being."  With  this  principle  in 
view,  what  am  I  to  think  of  the  question  just 
quoted?  Might  I  not  with  just  as  much  pro- 
priety ask  you,  in  reference  to  your  assertion 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.  141 

"  term  has  ended  in  the  conviction,  that,  as  ap- 
"  plied  to  the  Saviour  it  is  a  mere  parallelism 
"  of  ovyajiyirog,"  I  cannot  conceal  my  surprise. 
The  venerable  Dr.  Jacomb,  a  pious  and  learned 
Puritan  divine  of  England,  who  wrote  about  a 
century  and  a  half  ago,  in  one  of  several  Ser- 
mo?is  on  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  particularly  notices  this  very  in- 
terpretation of  iiovoyevYiq,  and  unceremoniously 
classes  it  among  those  Socinian  perversions  of 
scripture,  which  have  been  employed  to  op- 
pose the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  Sonship  of 
Christ.  He  rejects  it ;  and  among  other  re- 
marks, observes,  that,  so  far  as  the  criticism 
alludes  to  Genesis  xxii.  2,  12,  16.  it  certainly 
has  no  force,  for  that  Isaac  was  really  the 
only  son  of  Abraham  ; — the  only  son  of  his 
wife ;  the  only  son  of  promise  ;  the  only  heir 
of  promise.  The  examples  which  you  have 
adduced  to  illustrate  and  confirm  your  inter- 
pretation of  the  word  in  question,  appear  to 
me  to  prove  only  that  fallible,  and  perhaps 
very  imperfectly  qualified  translators,  have 
used  much  freedom  in  their  versions.  What 
enlightened  theologian  would  be  willing  to 
take  the  Septuagint  rendering  as,  in  all  cases, 
giving  the  true  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament? 
I  must  think  that,  if  such  license  of  criticism  be 


142    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

once  admitted,  Ave  may  make  any  text  of  scrip- 
ture speak  almost  what  we  please. 

A  few  insulated  texts,  of  minor  importance, 
as  to  their  bearing  on  this  subject,  remain  to 
be  considered.  I  shall  say  a  word  or  two  on 
several  of  them,  leaving  the  rest  to  be  inter- 
preted, as  I  think  they  may  easily  be,  on  the 
principles  already  laid  down. 

In  commenting  on  Isaiah  ix.  6,  You  say,  (p. 
152)  "  If  I  might  insist  on  names,  I  would  ask, 
"  how  can  Christ  be  called  the  everlasting  Fa- 
"  ther  ?  How  can  the  Son  be  the  Father  ?"  I 
hardly  know  how  to  interpret  this  question, 
when  I  find  you  yourself,  in  a  preceding  page 
(p.  128)  expressing  yourself  on  the  very  same 
title,  as  found  in  the  very  same  passage  of 
scripture,  in  the  following  manner.  "  Exactly 
"  correspondent  with  this  sentiment  is  that  of 
i6  Isaiah,  in  chap,  ix ;  where  speaking  of  the 
"  Son  who  was  to  be  born,  and  to  be  made 
"  universal  King,  he  calls  him,  among  other 
u  names,  the  mighty  God,  the  Father  of  eter- 
£inity  ("iy  *3Nj)  which  I  understand,  with 
**  Rosenmueller,  to  be  an  idiomatick  phrase, 
"  simply  meaning  eternal."  I  presume,  after 
this,  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  say  a  word  in 
answer  to  your  question  in  page  152.  You 
have  furnished  it  yourself  in  the  most  ample 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.    143 

manner.  Other  interpretations  of  it,  in  my 
opinion,  entirely  satisfactory,  might,  indeed, 
be  given ;  but,  on  the  principle  of  the  argu- 
mentum  ad  hominem,  they  need  not  be 
recited. 

With  respect  to  2  Sam.  vii.  14,  its  primary 
reference  was  undoubtedly  to  Solomon.  He 
was  yet  to  be  born ;  and,  of  course,  this  cir- 
cumstance modified  the  language  employed  on 
the  occasion.  Its  reference  to  the  Son  of  God 
was  secondary  and  remote ;  and  it  simply,  I 
apprehend,  declares  what  the  relation  should 
be  between  him  and  the  Father.  It  says  no- 
thing about  the  manner  in  which  that  relation 
is  constituted,  or  whether  in  time  or  eternity. 
I  cannot  perceive,  therefore,  that  it  affords  the 
smallest  aid,  either  to  your  cause  or  to  mine ; 
or  that  it  is  unfriendly  to  either. 

As  to  Psalm  lxxxix.  27.  /  will  make  him 
my  first  born,  fyc. ;  the  original  verb  here 
translated,  I  will  make,  as  the  learned  Bux- 
torf  tells  us,  signifies,  not  only  do,  pono,  but 
also  expono.  The  meaning  may,  therefore,  be, 
"  I  will  set  him  forth  as — or  manifest  him  to 
be,  my  first  born."  Accordingly,  the  Septua- 
gint  has  it — "  I  will  set  him,  (or  exhibit 
"  him)  as  a  first  born,  high  above  all  the  kings 


144    TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C. 

"  of  the  earth."    This  relieves  the  passage,  on 
my  principle,  of  all  difficulty. 

You  assert  that  Hebrews  i.  6.  When  he 
bringeth  his  first  begotten  into  the  world,  he 
saith,  Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him" 
if  it  apply  at  all  to  the  subject,  is  clearly 
against  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation.  I 
do  not  perceive  it  to  be  so.  To  what  event 
does  the  apostle  refer,  when  he  speaks  of  the 
first-begotten  being  brought  into  the  world? 
Pretty  certainly  not  to  his  introduction  into 
office ;  for  this  had  taken  place  four  thousand 
years  before  his  incarnation.  But  probably, 
either  to  his  birth,  according  to  the  flesh,  or 
to  his  resurrection.  Most  probably  to  the  lat- 
ter ;  for  the  expression  in  the  original  is  otav 
Ss  Ttakiv  etaayayyj — "  when  he  brings  him 
again  ;"  which  we  may  consider  as  peculiarly 
applicable  to  his  rising  again  from  the  dead. 
But,  whether  these  words  refer  to  the  Sa- 
viours birth  of  the  virgin,  or  to  his  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead,  they  equally  and  perfectly 
accord,  as  I  conceive,  with  my  creed.  I  sup- 
pose, as  before  repeatedly  expressed,  that  he 
was  the  first  begotten,  before  he  came  or  was 
brought  into  this  world; — that  he  came  as 
the  only -begotten,  or  first-begotten  of  the  Fa- 
ther ; — and  that,  accordingly,  whether  the  ex- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE,  &C.         145 

pression  refer  to  the  one  event,  or  the  other, 
we  have  equal  evidence,  with  respect  to  each, 
that  he  was  gloriously  attended  and  worshipped 
by  angels.  No  legitimate  use  of  this  passage 
can,  I  think,  be  made  against  the  doctrine 
which  I  am  endeavouring  to  maintain. 

But  I  will  here  take  leave  of  the  scriptural 
testimony.  It  is  impossible  for  me,  my  dear 
Sir,  to  concur  with  you  in  your  interpretation 
of  several  other  passages.  I  am  afraid,  haw- 
ever,  of  wearying  your  patience,  by  pursuing 
the  examination  of  them  further ;  and  will, 
therefore,  hasten  to  another  branch  of  the 
subject 


N 


LETTER   V. 


Testimony  of  the  Early  Fathers. 


REVEREND  AND  DEAR  BROTHER, 

The  considerations  urged  in  the  pre- 
ceding Letters,  having  fully  satisfied  me,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  and  eternal  Sonship 
of  Christ  is  taught  in  Scripture  ;  I  might  here 
lay  down  my  pen.  For,  if  this  doctrine  be 
really  contained  in  the  Bible,  it  matters  little 
by  whom  it  is  denied.  Yet,  as  I  had  asserted, 
that  the  U.  early  Fathers"  maintained  it ;  and 
as  so  considerable  a  portion  of  your  pamphlet 
is  employed  in  attempting  to  show  the  con- 
trary ;  I  ought  not,  perhaps,  with  my  present 
convictions,  to  abandon  the  cause  here :  more 
especially  as  we  all  agree,  that  the  fact  of  the 
early  uninspired  christian  writers  being  mani- 
festly and  generally  in  favour  of  any  doctrine 


TESTIMONY  OF,  &C»  147 

or  practice,  forms  a  presumptive  evidence  in 
its  favour  of  no  small  value.  I  propose,  there- 
fore, to  take  a  hasty  view  of  their  testimony ; 
examining  a  little  those  extracts  which  you 
have  adduced  in  support  of  your  allegation 
respecting  them,  and  offering  to  your  conside- 
ration a  few  others,  which  appear  to  me  to  look 
very  much  the  other  way. 

When  I  said,  that  U  the  early  christian 
"  writers  constantly  declared  that  the  doctrine 
"  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the^  Son  was  to 
"be  firmly  believed,"  I  certainly  did  not 
mean  to  confine  my  assertion  to  the  testimony 
of  the  Jlnte-Nicene  Fathers,  as  the  word 
"  early"  might  seem,  at  first  view,  to  import. 
This  was  evident  from  my  immediately  after- 
wards quoting,  in  confirmation  of  my  remark, 
Ambrose,  of  Milan,  who,  it  is  well  known,  was 
not  born  until  a  number  of  years  after  the 
Council  of  Nice.  It  was  merely  my  intention 
to  assert,  that  the  Fathers  of  the  first  four  or 
five  centuries  were  generally  uniform  and  po- 
sitive in  their  testimony  on  this  subject.  But, 
as  you  have  proceeded  upon  a  different  inter- 
pretation of  my  language,  I  am  quite  willing 
to  adopt  that  interpretation  as  my  own ;  and 
do  verily  believe  that  it  will  not  be  a  difficult 
task  to  make  it  good. 


148  TESTIMONY  OF 

And  here  I  hope,  my  dear  Sir,  you  will 
pardon  me  for  saying,  that  after  what  I  had 
read,  in  your  Letters  to  Dr.  Charming,  con- 
cerning the  testimony  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fa- 
thers on  this  very  subject,  it  was  with  no  or- 
dinary surprise  that  I  found  you  speaking  in  a 
language  so  entirely  different  in  your  Letters 
to  me.  In  your  second  Letter  to  Dr.  Chan- 
ning9  you  say,  "  This  Council,  (the  Nicene) 

"  LIKE  THE  GREAT  BODY  OF  THE  ANCIENT  FA- 
"THEUS,     BELIEVED     IN    THE     DOCTRINE     OF 

"  eternal  generation."     Again,  you  say, 
toward  the  close  of  your  fourth  Letter,  "the 

"MOST    OF    THE    ANCIENT    FATHERS    IN    THE 
«  CHURCH     MAINTAINED     THE     DOCTRINE    OF 

"  eternal  generation."  And,  in  another 
place,  you  expressly  refer,  with  approbation, 
to  the  works  of  Bishop  Bull,  as  containing  sa- 
tisfactory proof  of  this  fact.  Now  you  maintain 
that  the  body  of  the  Ante-Niccne  fathers  did 
not  so  believe,  and  that  Bishop  Bull  was  in 
error.  I  am  aware  that  men  of  diligent  and  li- 
beral inquiry  may,  and  sometimes  do,  alter 
their  minds  ;  and  that  "  second  thoughts,"  are 
often  the  best.  But,  in  this  case,  I  must  be  per- 
mitted to  believe  that  your  "  first  thoughts" 
were  the  more  correct  and  the  more  tenable. 
One  remark  more  may  not  be  improperly 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  149 

.offered,  before  I  proceed  to  the  testimony  of 
the  Fathers.  You  call  upon  me  to  prove  that 
the  fathers  maintained,  that  the  generation  of 
the  Son  of  God  was  not  only  eternal,  but  also 
necessary.  I  cannot  perceive  any  just  ground 
for  this  demand.  I  never  thought,  and  cer- 
tainly have  no  recollection  that  I  ever  said, 
that  they  did  thus  believe.  It  is  true  I  am  my- 
self a  firm  believer,  in  the  necessity  as  well  as 
the  eternity  of  this  generation;  that  is,  I  sup- 
pose that  the  Divine  nature,  in  this  respect, 
could  not  have  been  different  from  what  it  is, 
any  more  than  it  could  have  been  different  in 
any  other  respect.  But  I  never  alledged  that 
the  early  fathers  entertained  the  same  opinion. 
When,  therefore,  passages  are  produced  from 
any  of  their  writings  which  assert  or  intimate, 
that  the  Son,  though  begotten  from  eternity, 
was  begotten  by  or  with  the  Father's  will,  or 
by  an  act  of  his  volition  ;  such  passages  may 
prove,  for  any  thing  I  know,  that  the  writers 
did  not  reason  very  consequentially,  or  express 
themselves  very  accurately ;  but  they  present 
to  our  view  a  point  with  which  I  have  no  spe- 
cial concern.  Besides,  I  mean,  hereafter,  to 
call  in  question,  what  you  appear  every  where 
to  take  for  granted,  when  you  allude  to  this 
point,  viz.  that  there  is  any  essential  inconsis- 
n2 


150  TESTIMONY  OF 

tency  between  what  is  necessary  and  what  is 
voluntary,  when  properly  understood. 

If  I  understand  your  position  with  regard 
to  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  it  is  this  (p.  17, 
18,)  that,  while  they  generally  and  decisively 
taught  the  eternity  of  the  Word,  they  consi- 
dered it  as  existing  in  God,  before  the  creation 
of  our  world,  only  as  the  Reason  or  Under- 
standing of  the  Divine  nature,  or,  in  one 
word,  as  an  attribute  of  Deity;  that  at,  or 
near,  the  time  when  the  work  of  creation  was 
to  be  performed,  it  became  a  separate  Hypos- 
tasis; and  that  this  event,  viz.  his  coming 
forth  to  create,  was  what  the  body  of  the 
early  Fathers  style  his  generation;  that  at 
this  time,  and  by  this  act,  he  became  the  Son 
of  God;  that  to  this  date  and  transaction  they 
referred  at  once,  the  title  Father,  as  belonging 
to  the  First  Person  of  the  Trinity,  and  the 
title  Son,  as  belonging  to  the  Second:  and, 
consequently,  that  these  writers  can  by  no 
means  be  said  to  have  taught  the  eternal  Son- 
ship,  or  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Second 
Person  of  the  Trinity. — If,  in  this  statement, 
I  have  done  any  injustice  to  your  representa- 
tion, I  can  assure  you,  my  dear  Sir,  that  I 
have  not  done  it  intentionally.     And  I  know 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  151 

that  others  have  understood  you  in  the  same 
manner. 

On  this  representation,  if  there  were  time 
or  need  for  it,  I  might  express  my  surprise 
that  you  should  take  so  much  pains  to  exhibit 
the  Fathers  under  an  aspect  which  confessedly 
affords  not  the  least  countenance  to  your  own 
creed.  But  I  will  not  dwell  on  this  fact.  It  is 
of  little  importance.  If  historical  verity  be  as 
you  seem  to  think,  undoubtedly  every  author 
has  a  right  to  make  what  use  of  it  he  pleases.  I 
would  offer  several  remarks,  ho wever,  which,  if 
I  mistake  not,  will  render  it  probable,  that  the 
pious  and  worthy  writers  referred  to,  have 
been,  at  least  in  some  degree,  misapprehended 
and  erroneously  exhibited. 

My  first  remark  is,  that  if  the  charge,  as 
stated  by  you,  be  correct,  it  really  amounts, 
in  my  view,  to  a  charge  of  general  "  patristi- 
cal"  Unitarianism,  so  far  as  the  period  prior 
to  the  Council  of  Nice  is  concerned.  Truly, 
my  dear  friend,  if  the  extracts  which  you  have 
given  were  to  be  considered  as  a  fair  specimen 
of  the  general  manner  in  which  the  early  Fa- 
thers speak  of  the  Person  of  the  Redeemer,  I 
should  turn  away  from  their  volumes,  "  sick 
u  to  the  bottom  of  my  heart,"  as  you  say  you 
are,  of  their  speculations.  Dr.  Priestley,  indeed, 


152  TESTIMONY  OF 

and  others  of  his  school,  would  persuade  us 
that  the  early  Fathers,  were,  in  fact,  as  a 
body,  Unitarians.  But  I  am  confident  that 
they  have  laboured  in  vain  ;  and,  what  is 
more,  that  they  have  been  often  and  triumph- 
antly refuted.  And  I  have  no  doubt  that  you 
entertain  the  same  opinion. 

My  second  remark  is,  that  I  do  not  deny, 
that  some  of  the  Jlnte-Nicene  Fathers  do  occa- 
sionally speak  in  a  manner  which  would  seem, 
at  first  view,  to  justify  the  charge  which  you 
have  brought  against  them.  A  few  of  them  are 
found,  no  doubt,  to  express  themselves  in  a 
way  sufficiently  fanciful  and  repulsive  concern- 
ing the  Aoyo$  evhiadstoc,,  and  the  Aoyog  npocpo- 
pixog  :  a  notion  which  has  been  animadverted 
on  by  a  number  of  writers  within  the  last  two 
centuries,  and  on  which  Bishop  Horsley  deli- 
vered the  following  opinion,  in  his  controversy 
with  Dr.  Priestley,  nearly  forty  years  ago. 
U  If  any  thing  be  justly  reprehensible  in  the 
"  notions  of  the  Platonick  Christians,  it  is 
"  this  conceit,  which  seems  to  be  common  to 
"  Athena  gor  as  with  them  all,  and  is  a  key  to 
"  the  meaning  of  many  obscure  passages  in 
"  their  writings — That  the  external  display 
«  of  the  powers  of  the  Son  in  the  business  of 
"  creation,  is  the  thing  intended  in  the  scrip- 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  133 

•*'  til  re  language  under  the  figure  of  his  gene- 
"  ration.  A  conceit  which  seems  to  have  no 
"  certain  foundation  in  holy  writ,  and  no  au- 
"  thority  in  the  opinions  and  doctrines  of  the 
u  preceding  age.  And  it  seems  to  have  be- 
"  trayed  some  of  those  who  were  most  wedded 
u  to  it,  into  the  use  of  a  very  improper  lan- 
"  guage ;  as  if  a  new  relation  had  takea  place 
u  between  the  First  and  Second  Persons,  when 
u  the  creative  powers  were  first  exerted."* 

My  third  remark  is,  that,  although  it  must 
be  confessed  there  is  something  in  the  writings 
of  a  few  of  those  venerable  ancients,  to  counte- 
nance the  representation  you  have  made  ; 
yet  I  cannot  think  that  you  have  by  any  means 
done  them  justice  in  the  exhibition  of  them 
which  you  have  given,  in  reference  to  this 
subject.  *  If  it  be  meant  to  impute  to  them  the 
opinion  which  I  before  stated,  viz.  that  the 
Logos  immanent  or  endiathetick,  was  not  a 
Person,  but  an  attribute  of  the  Godhead ;  mere 
intellect  or  reason,  or  wisdom,  existing  from 
eternity  ;  and  that  the  Logos  prophorick  was 
considered  by  them  as  the  formation  of  this 
attribute,  just  before  the  creation  of  the  world, 
into  a  Person,  by  an  act  of  the  Divine  will  j 

*  Tracts  in  Controversy  with  Dr.  Priestley,  p.  63. 


154  TESTIMONY  OF 

that  they  called  this  act  the  generation  of  the 
Son  ;  and  that  they  believed  in  no  other  gene- 
ration;— I  say,  if  it  be  meant  to  impute  to 
them  this  opinion, — I  do  verily  believe  that 
the  imputation  is  unjust.  I  cannot,  indeed, 
claim  so  extensive  an  acquaintance  with  the 
early  Fathers,  as  I  wish  it  was  in  my  power  to 
claim ;  yet  I  have  read  enough  in  them  to  be 
very  confident  that  there  were  very  few,  if 
any  of  them,  who  really  entertained  such  an 
opinion  as  has  been  just  stated.  And  in  this 
judgment  I  am  supported  by  the  decision  of 
such  men  as  Dr.  Waterland,  and  Bishop 
Horsley.  The  latter,  while  he  acknowledges 
the  distinction  which  some  of  them  make  be- 
tween the  endiathetich  and  prophorick  Logos, 
speaks  in  the  following  decisive  language — 
"  The  conversion  of  an  attribute  into  a  Person, 
"  whatever  Dr.  Priestley  may  imagine,  is  a 
**  notion  to  which  they  were  entire  strangers. 
"  They  held,  indeed,  that  the  Son  was  neces- 
"  sarily  and  inseparably  attached  to  the  at- 
"  tributes  of  the  Paternal  mind ;  insomuch 
ii  that  the  Father  could  no  more  be  without 
ff  the  Son,  than  without  his  own  attributes. 
H  But  that  the  Son  had  been  a  mere  attribute 
"  before  he  became  a  Person,  or  that  the  Pa- 
"  ternal  attributes  were  older  than  the  Son's 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  155 

a  personal  existence,  is  a  doctrine  which  they 
M  would  have  heard  with  horror  and  amaze- 
"  ment.  With  horror  as  Christians ;  with 
u  amazement  as  philosophers."  And  after- 
wards, when  called  to  re -consider  this  deci- 
sion, he  still  pointedly  insists — "  For  the  con- 
"  version  of  an  attribute  into  a  substance,  I 
"  abide  by  my  assertion,  that  it  is  the  offspring 
"  of  your  own  imagination ;  and  can  only  have 
?  arisen  from  a  misapprehension  of  the  lan- 
"  guage  of  the  Platonick  Fathers."*  You  are 
the  first  Trinitarian  that  I  remember  to  have 
heard  of,  since  the  days  of  Petavius  and  Huet, 
who  ascribed  such  an  opinion  to  the  early  wri- 
ters of  the  Christian  church. 

My  fourth  remark  is,  that,  with  regard  to 
Petavius  and  Huet,  when  they  are  brought 
forward  to  prove  that  the  early  Fathers  believed 
in  the  simply  ante-mundane  generation  of  the 
Son,  their  testimony  ought  to  be  understood. 
Petavius,  a  learned  French  Jesuit,  who  flour- 
ished about  two  hundred  years  ago,  was  a  firm 
believer,  both  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
and  in  that  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the 
Son.  But  being  greatly  incensed  at  the  sepa- 
ration  of  the  Reformed  churches  from  the 

*  Tracts  in  Controversy  -with  Br,  Priestley,  p.  64.  260. 


156  TESTIMONY  OF 

Catholick  communion;  and  finding  that  the 
Protestant  cause  was  considered  as  receiving 
very  important  support  from  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries;  he 
was  anxious  to  take  every  method  of  degrading 
those  Fathers,  and  destroying  their  authority. 
In  order  to  do  this  most  effectually,  he  en- 
deavoured to  shew  that  they  were  deeply  er- 
roneous with  respect  to  doctrines  which  the 
Protestants  and  Catholicks  alike  held  precious. 
With  regard  to  Huet,  Bishop  Horsley  observes, 
that  he  was  the  mere  "  echo  of  the  very 
learned  Jesuit"  Of  course,  so  far  as^uthority 
goes,  we  have  here  only  the  authority  of  a  sin- 
gle man.  His  arguments,  which  Unitarians 
who  came  after  him,  borrowed  and  urged,  are 
supposed  by  some  of  the  most  competent  judges 
in  the  christian  world  to  be  examined  and  re- 
futed with  great  learning  and  force  by  Bishop 
Bull,  in  his  Defensio  Fidei  Nicsense. 

My  fifth  remark  is,  that  of  the  eighteen  or 
twenty  Fathers  whom  you  quote,  a  large  num- 
ber afford  you  no  kind  of  aid ;  some,  as  I  hope 
to  prove,  are  decisively  against  you;  and 
others  are  inaccurate  only  in  phraseology. 
The  solitary  one  or  two, — for  I  think  there 
are  no  more, — who  seem  to  assert  what  you 
impute  to  them,  if  they  really  do  so,  ought  to 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  157 

be  deemed  hereticks,  and  of  course,  to  be 
placed  out  of  the  question  in  this  correspon- 
dence. Yet, 

I  remark,  in  thQ  sixth  place,  that,  after  all, 
I  do  seriously  doubt  whether  any  one  of  the 
Fathers  whom  you  have  cited,  when  the  testi- 
mony drawn  from  his  whole  writings  comes  to 
be  impartially  canvassed  and  compared,  can 
be  convicted  of  holding  the  opinion  which  you 
ascribe  to  them  generally.  Even  Tertullian, 
(whom,  of  the  whole  number,  I  feel  most  in- 
clined to  give  up)  was,  I  firmly  believe,  a 
Trinitarian ;  and,  consequently,  not  an  advo- 
cate of  mere  ante-mundane  generation,  as  you 
have  represented  it.  When  I  find  some  of 
those  early  writers  showing,  by  decisive  pas- 
sages, that  they  are,  in  the  main,  right ;  and  at 
other  times  using  language  (which  must  be  at 
all  times  figurative  when  applied  to  pure 
spirit)  in  an  unskilful  and  incorrect  manner ; 
— what  am  I  to  infer?  Certainly,  as  it  seems 
to  me,  that  their  apparent  errors  are  rather  to 
be  ascribed  to  crudeness  of  thought,  or  loose- 
ness of  expression,  in  unguarded  moments,  ra- 
ther than  to  any  fixed  or  deliberate  system  of 
erroneous  thinking. 

My  last  remark  is,  that,  in  order  to  make  a 
proper  estimate  of  what  is  said  by  the  Fathers 

O 


158  TESTIMONY  OF 

on  this  subject,  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind, 
as  Dr.  Waterland  observed,  more  than  a  cen- 
tury ago,  that  there  is  a  three-fold  generation 
of  the  Son  of  God  frequently  mentioned  by 
those  early  writers. 

(1.)  The  Jirst  is,  his  eternal  generation,  or 
filiation,  that  is,  his  eternally  existing  in  and 
of  the  Father ;  the  eternal  Logos,  or  utterance 
of  the  eternal  Mind.  It  is  in  reference  to  this, 
primarily  and  essentially,  that  they  represent 
him  as  the  only  begotten,  and  a  distinct  Person 
from  the  Father,  but  of  the  same  substance 
with  him. 

(2.)  His  second  generation,  of  which  they 
speak,  was  his  coming  forth,  from  the  Father, 
to  exert  his  power  in  the  work  of  creation. 
This  is  the  ante-mundane  generation,  of  which 
you  say  so  much.  It  is,  of  course,  represented, 
by  those  who  speak  of  it,  as  taking  place  in 
time,  and  as  taking  place  according  to  the 
good  pleasure,  or  will  of  the  Father :  and  it 
is  in  reference  to  this  generation,  as  some  of 
them  supposed,  that  he  is  said,  by  the  apostle, 
to  be  nporotoxoc  7taayjg  xtioew; — First  born  be- 
fore every  creature. 

(3.)  His  third  generation,  or  filiation,  was 
when  he  condescended  to  be  born  of  a  virgin, 
and  to  become  man.  This  third,  as  well  as  the 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  159 

first,  is  repeatedly  referred  to  in  the  sacred 
scriptures.  The  second,  represented  as  a  birth, 
appears  to  be  entirely  destitute  of  any  scrip- 
tural warrant. 

Sometimes  the  early  Fathers  refer  to  one  of 
these  generations,  and  sometimes  to  another. 
But  that  a  number  of  them,  and  especially  of 
those  quoted  by  you,  fully  believed,  and  con- 
stantly maintained  them  all,  I  hope  to  produce 
satisfactory  evidence,  before  I  take  leave  of 
the  subject.  When,  therefore,  you  show  that  a 
number  of  those  Fathers  used  language,  which 
can  apply  only  to  the  second  of  the  genera- 
tions mentioned,  you  showr  what  I  pretend  not 
to  disprove  or  deny.  But  if  my  position  be  cor- 
rect, this  canv  avail  you  nothing,  as  to  the  sub- 
stance of  your  argument  from  the  Fathers. 
Whatever  fanciful  and  unscriptural  notions 
some  of  them  might  have  taken  up  \  yet  if  the 
great  body  of  them  evidently  believed  in  a 
divine  and  eternal  filiation  besides ;  and  if 
even  some  of  those  who  talk  of  an  ante-mu?i- 
dane  Sonship,  in  other  places  speak  in  a  way 
which  can  only  be  interpreted  of  a  Sonship 
which  had  no  beginning;  then  it  is  manifest 
that  all  the  speculations  concerning  the  endia- 
thetick  and  prophorick  Logos  which  can  be 
quoted,  even  if  they  were  tenfold  more  nume- 


160  TESTIMONY  OF 

rous  than  they  are,  can  answer  no  other  pur- 
pose than  to  prove  that  those  venerable  men 
sometimes  wrote  in  a  very  weak  and  injudi- 
cious manner. 

With  these  remarks  in  view,  I  shall  now  pro- 
duce some  of  those  passages  from  the  Fathers 
who  lived  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  which 
have  convinced  me  that  the  foregoing  repre- 
sentation is  a  simple  statement  of  facts  respect- 
ing them.  I  begin  with  the  Greek  Fathers  of 
that  period,  with  the  consideration  of  whose 
testimony  I  propose  to  employ  the  remainder 
of  this  Letter. 

And  here  I  shall  pass  over  Barnabas  and 
Hermas  with  very  slight  notice.  I  find  no- 
thing in  either  of  them  decisive  of  the  question 
at  issue  between  us.  Yet  two  or  three  short 
quotations  will  show  that  they  speak  of  the 
Son  of  God  very  much  in  the  Scriptural  style, 
and  evidently  mean  to  include  in  this  title,  his 
divine  and  eternal  character. 

Barnabas  says — "  For  this  cause,  the  Lord 
«  was  content  to  suffer  for  our  souls,  although 
tf  he  be  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth  ;  to 
"  whom  God  said  before  the  beginning  of  the 
"  world,  Let  us  make  man,  #c. — For  thus 
"saith  the  scripture  concerning  us,  where  it 
"introduceth  the  Father  speaking  to  the 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  161 

a  Son,  Let  us  make  man,  $c. — Then  he 
'U  clearly  manifested  himself  to  be  the  Son  of 
"  God ;  for  had  he  not  come  in  the  flesh,  how 
"  should  men  have  been  able  to  look  upon  him 
"  that  they  might  be  saved? — Wherefore  the 
"  Son  of  God  came  in  the  flesh  for  this  cause, 
"  that  he  might  fill  up  the  measure  of  their  ini- 
"  quity,  &c.  If,  therefore,  the  Son  of  God, 
"  who  is  the  Lord  of  all,  and  shall  come  to 
"  judge  both  the  quick  and  dead,  &c."  "Be- 
"  hold,  again,  Jesus,  not  the  son  of  man,  but 
"  the  Son  of  God,  made  manifest  in  the  flesh" 
(ev  aapxi  QavepQ&eig.)*  I  shall  leave  these  ex- 
tracts to  speak  for  themselves.  On  the  last 
only  I  shall  offer  a  single  comment.  The  strik- 
ing similarity  of  expression  between  the  man- 
ner in  which  Barnabas  speaks  of  the  Son  as 
manifested  in  the  flesh,  and  that  in  which  the 
apostle  (1  Tim.  iii.  16.)  speaks  of  God  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh  (Oeog  e<pavepo^yj  ev  Goqxi)  will 
arrest  the  attention  of  every  reader. 

Hermas  also  says,  as  you  quote,  "The  Son 
"  of  God  is  indeed  more  ancient  than  any  crea- 
"  ture ;  insomuch  that  he  was  in  council  with 
"  his  Father  at  the  creation  of  all  things," — 
Again ;  "  The  name  of  the  Son  of  God  is  great 

ox^c  without  bounds,  and  the  ivhole  world  is 

*  Catholick  Epistle,  §  5,  6,  7.  13. 

m2 


a 


162  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  supported  by  it — Every  creature  of  God  is 
(i  supported  by  his  Son."* 

Ignatius  also,  notwithstanding  what  you 
have  said  of  him,  and  of  the  only  passage  pro- 
duced from  him,  I  must  still  think  both  a  com- 
petent, and  a  decisive  witness  on  the  subject 
under  consideration.  I  do  not  admit  that  the 
most  learned  and  able  of  the  eriticks  reject  as 
spurious  the  seven  shorter  Epistles  of  this  Fa- 
ther, which  alone  are  now  quoted.  But  on  this 
point  it  is  impossible  at  present  to  enlarge- 
The  passage  referred  to,  is  in  these  words — 
"  There  is  one  God,  who  revealed  himself  by 
"  Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  who  is  his  eternal  Lo- 
"gos,  not  proceeding  from  silenee."f  The 
main  design  of  Ignatius  in  this  place  evidently 
is  to  establish  our  Saviour's  divinity.  He  shews 
that  he  is  God,  because  he  is  the  Wordy  or  the 
Speech  of  God,  which,  being  eternal,  is  not 
preceded  by  silence,  as  the  speech  of  men  al- 
ways must  be.  In  other  words,  he  plainly 
meant  to  say  that  the  Son  always  was,  and 

is  CO-EVAL  WITH  GOD  THE  FATHER. 

I  believe  this  to  be  his  meaning,  not  merely 
because  it  seems  to  me  the  only  natural  con- 
struction of  the  passage ;  nor  because  Bishop 
Bull,  Bishop  Horsley,  and  other  learned  men, 

*  Pastor.  Lib.  i'u.  Simil  12. 14.  f  Epist,  ad  Magnet.  %  8. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  163 

have  confidently  asserted,  and  learnedly 
proved  it;  but  also  because  you  yourself, 
while  you  have  objected  to  this  sense,  have 
not  proposed  any  other  as  a  substitute. 

Several  other  short  passages  scattered 
through  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  though  I  ac- 
knowledge not  so  strong  in  favour  of  the  doc- 
trine which  I  maintain,  as  that  just  quoted,  yet 
appear  to  me  evidently  favourable  to  it.  The 
^following  is  a  specimen — "  Now  the  God  and  Fa- 
"  ther  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  he  himself 
{<  who  is  our  everlasting  High  Priest,  the 
"  Son  of  God,  even  Jesus  Christ,  build  you 
"  up  in  faith,  &c." — "  That  ye  all  by  name 
"  come  together  in  common  in  one  faith,  and 
"  in  one  Jesus  Christ ;  who  is  of  the  race  of 
u  David  according  to  the  flesh ;  the  son  of 
"  man  and  the  Son  of  God." — "  Who  truly 
"  was  of  the  race  of  David,  according  to  the 
"  flesh,  but  the  Son  of  God,  according  to 
"  the  will  and power  of  God  ;  truly  born  of  the 
*•'  Virgin  and  baptized  of  John  &e." — "  Jesus 
*  Christ — who  was  with  the  Father  before  all 
"  ages,  and  appeared  in  the  end  to  us." — 
"  That  so  whatsoever  ye  do,  ye  may  prosper 
"  both  in  body  and  spirit;  in  faith  and  charity; 
"  in  the  Son,  and  in  the  Father,  and  in  the 
"  Holy  Spirit." — "  There  is  one  Physician, 


164  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  both  fleshly  and  spiritual,  begotten  and  un- 
"  begotten ;  God  incarnate ;  true  life  in  death; 
"  both  of  Mary  and  of  God :  first  passable, 
"  then  impassable ;  even  Jesus  Christ  our 
"  Lord."*  I  know  that  it  is  possible  to  put  a 
gloss  upon  all  these  passages  different  from 
that  which  renders  the  Sonship  here  spoken 
of  eternal ;  but  it  appears  to  me  that  the  latter 
is  the  only  natural  interpretation.  It  is  evi- 
dent that,  according  to  Ignatius,  the  title  Son 
of  God,  is  not  founded  on  the  incarnation  : 
for,  according  to  the  flesh,  he  tells  us,  he  is  the 
son  of  man  ;  but  it  is  in  a  higher  sense  that 
he  is  the  Son  of  God.  He  is  begotten  both 
of  Mary  and  of  God. 

Justin  Martyr  is  the  next  to  whose  testi- 
mony I  shall  advert.  And  here  again,  I  can- 
not by  any  means  consider  this  Father  as  a 
witness  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  mere  ante- 
mundane  generation,  as  you  seem  to  imagine. 
Indeed  I  am  persuaded  that  what  he  says  on 
this  subject,  when  the  several  parts  of  it  are 
compared  and  taken  together,  will  be  found 
to  look  very  much  like  the  old  Orthodox  doc- 
trine ;  or  rather  that  the  natural  construction 
of  them  is  reconcileable  with  that   doctrine 

*  Epist.  adPhifipp.  §  12.  ad  Magnes.  §  6. 13.  ad  Smyrn.  §  1. 
adEphes.  %7.  20. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  165 

alone.  I  beg  your  attention  to  the  following 
passages. 

44  And  when  we  say  that  the  Logos,  who  is 
44  the  first  offspring  of  God,  was  begotten 
44  without  mixture,  even  Jesus  Christ  our 
"  Teacher,  and  that  being  crucified,  dead, 
44  and  risen  again,  he  ascended  into  heaven, 
44  we  do  not  bring  forward  any  thing  entirely 
44  foreign  to  what  is  said  by  you  concerning 
44  those  called  the  sons  of  Jupiter  P* 

44  But  the  Son  of  God,  who  is  called  Jesus, 
¥  if  he  had  been  no  more  than  a  mere  man, 
"  was  worthy  to  be  called  the  Son  of  God  on 
44  on  account  of  his  wisdom ;  for  all  writers 
44  agree  in  calling  God  the  Father  of  Gods  and 
44  men :  but  if  we  also  denominate  him  the 

<•'  LogOS  Of  God,  ON  ACCOUNT  OF  HIS  BEING 
"  BEGOTTEN  OF  GOD  IN  A  PECULIAR  MANNER, 

44  above  the  common  method  of  generation,  as* 
44  we  said  before,  &c."f 

44  But  Jesus  Christ  peculiarly  (l8uj$)  the  only 
u  Son,  was  begotten  of  God,  being  his 
44  Word,  (Aoyog)  and  first  born,  and  power."J 

4(  But  by  the  Spirit  and  the  Power,  it  is 
%*  not  lawful  to  understand  any  thing  else  than 

•  Apol.  i.  p.  31.  Fol.  Edit.  Thirlbn.  Lond.  1723.    |  lhid  P-  s3- 

♦  Ibid  p.  35. 


166  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  the  Logos,  who  is  the  first  begotten  ofGodP 
«  But  the  Logos  of  God  is  his  Son."* 

"  But  to  the  Father  of  all  there  is  no  name 
u  given,  because  he  is  unbegotten ;  for  by 
"  whatsoever  name  he  should  be  called,  he 
u  would  have  those  imposing  the  name  older 
"  than  himself :  but  the  words  Father ',  God, 
"  Creator,  Lord  and  Sovereign,  are  not  pro- 
"  per  names,  but  appellations  derived  from 
"  his  benefactions  and  works.  But  his  Son, 
u  who  only  with  propriety  is  called  Son,  the 
"  Logos,  co- existing  with  him,  and  begotten 
"  before  all  creatures,  {ore)  when,  (or  since) 
"  in  the  beginning,  by  him  he  created  and 
"  adorned  all  things  ;  He  is  indeed  called 
46  Christ,  because  by  him  God  anointed  and 
u  adorned  all  things ;  but  this  name  embraces 
44  an  unknown  signification ;  in  like  man- 
•  ner,  as  the  appellation  God  is  not  a  proper 
44  name,  but  an  opinion  of  an  inscrutable  thing 
44  implanted  in  the  nature  of  man ;  but  Jesus 
44  had  the  title  and  designation  of  man  and 
i(  Saviour ."f 

"  Friends,  as  I  said,  I  will  give  you  another 

44  testimony  from  the  scriptures,  that  God,  in 

44  the  beginning,  before  all  creatures,   begat 

44  from  himself  a  certain  rational  Power,  which 

*  Jlpol.  i.  p.  h  93.  t  **•  »•  p.  114. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  167 

"  is  called  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  Glory  of  God, 
"  but  sometimes  Son,  sometimes  Wisdom, 
ft  sometimes  Angel,  sometimes  God,  sometimes 
H  Lord,  and  Logos,  and  onceJie  called  himself 
"  Leader  of  the  host,  when  he  appeared  to 
"  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun.  It  belongs  to  him 
u  to  be  called  by  all  these  names;  as  well  be- 
"  cause  he  administers  the  counsel  of  his  Fa- 
u  ther,  as  because  he  was  born  of  the  will  of 
!§?  his  Father.  But  something  of  the  same  kind 
"  we  perceive  to  take  place  in  ourselves,  for 
M  when  we  put  forth  any  rational  expression, 
"  (hoyov)  this  word  (or  idea)  is  begotten ;  not 
H  in  the  way  of  abscission,  as  if  we  diminished 
ft.  our  reason  by  putting  it  forth.  And  another 
"  instance  of  a  like  kind  we  perceive  to  take 
"  place  in  fire ;  for  the  fire  from  which  ano- 
"  ther  is  kindled,  is  not  diminished,  but  con- 
"  tinues  as  before,  and  both  it,  and  that  which 
"  was  kindled  from  it,  appear  in  existence  at 
ff  the  same  time :  there  is  no  diminution  of  that 
"  fire  from  which  the  other  was  kindled.  But 
the  Word  of  Wisdom  shall  testify  for  me, 
"  that  he  is  himself  God  wrho  is  begotten  of 
f*  the  Father  of  the  Universe,  and  is  the  Lo- 
u  gos  and  the  Wisdom,  and  the  Glory  of  him 
"  who  begat  him  ;  and  by  the  mouth  of  Solo- 
"  mon  thus  he  speaks.    Proverbs  viii.  21  ."* 

■  *  Dial  cum  Triipk.  p.  266. 


168  Testimony  of 

Again ; — u  But  indeed  this  very  offspring 
"  put  forth  by  the  Father,  eo-existed  with  the 
"  Father  before  all  creatures,  and  to  him  the 
"  Father  spake,  as  Solomon  has  declared,  be- 
"  cause,  in  the  beginning,  before  all  creatures, 
"  this  very  offspring  was  begotten  of  God, 
&  which  by  Solomon  is  called  Wisdom"* 

Now,  when  I  take  up  these  extracts,  and 
look  at  them,  as  a  plain  man,  who  had  no 
knowledge  of  conflicting  theories,  would  be 
likely  to  do,  they  appear  to  me  clearly  to 
evince  the  following  things — First,  That  Jus- 
tin considered  Son,  and  Logos  or  Word,  as 
convertible  names  or  titles  for  the  same  glo- 
rious Person  ;  and  that  he  never  dreamed  of 
the  latter  being  eternal,  and  the  former  only 
ante-mundane.  Secondly,  that  he  intended  to 
speak  of  the  Logos  or  Word  as  being  begotten 
— begotten  in  the  beginning—  before  all  crea- 
tures— in  other  words,  as  far  back  as  the  Logos 
existed.  Thirdly,  that  it  is  as  plainly  asserted 
that  the  Son  existed  before  all  creatures,  as 
that  the  Logos  existed  before  all  creatures. 
Now,  as  you  confess,  and  I  think  truly,  that 
Justin  considered  and  represented  the  Logos 
as  eternal,  there  appears  to  me  precisely  the 
same  evidence  that  he  considered  his  Sonship 

*  Dial  cum  Tryph.  p.  270, 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  169 

as  eternal.  And  fourthly,  that  he  considered 
the  Logos  or  Son  as  a  Person  begotten  (not 
by  the  mere  exhibition  of  something  previ- 
ously existing,  but)  by  the  Father,  out  of  his 
own  substance,  and  in  a  peculiar,  and  ineffable 
manner. 

In  the  foregoing  extracts,  however,  there 
are  two  things  of  which  you  avail  yourself. 
The  first  is,  that  Justin  represents  the  Word 
as  begotten  by  or  with  the  will  or  counsel  of 
the  Father.  Agreeably  to  an  intimation  before 
given,  it  is  my  purpose,  in  a  subsequent  Let- 
ter, to  consider  this  point  more  at  large.  Until 
I  come  to  that  discussion,  therefore,  I  shall 
content  myself  with  saying,  once  for  all,  that 
I  am  not  bound  to  justify  every  expression 
used  by  the  Fathers  on  this  subject.  It  is  a 
plain  matter  of  fact  which  I  am  now  endea- 
vouring to  establish.  But  even  if  it  were  other- 
wise, I  do  not  admit  of  any  inconsistency  be- 
tween Justin's  language,  as  to  this  point,  and 
my  creed.  I  maintain  that  an  act  of  God  may 
be  voluntary  and  yet  eternal.  If  so,  all  ob- 
jection drawn  from  this  source  is  at  an  end. 

The  second  thing  in  the  extracts  from  Jus- 
tin on  which  you  lay  great  stress,  is  that  clause 
in  the  extract  from  his  Second  Apology,  in 
which  he  says,  that  "  the  Logos  was  begotten 
P 


170  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  before  all  creatures,  when,  in  the  beginnings 
"  by  him  he  created  and  adorned  all  things." 
I  shall  presently  try  to  solve  this  difficulty ; 
and  will  only  now  say,  that  when  Justin,  in 
so  many  other  places,  as  we  have  seen,  speaks 
a  language  by  no  means  favourable  to  the  mere 
ante-mundane  generation,  which  you  suppose 
him  here  to  assert,  the  natural  inference  is, 
either  that  the  place  has  been  corrupted,  or 
that  you  misapprehend  its  meaning.  I  know 
not  of  a  sounder  or  a  more  important  principle 
of  interpretation,  than  that  we  must  ascertain 
the  import  of  those  passages  in  any  writer, 
which  are  obscure  or  doubtful,  by  those  the 
meaning  of  which  is  more  plain  and  certain. 

You  complain  that  Bishop  Bull,  in  quoting 
and  translating  this  passage  from  Justin,  has 
acted  an  unfair  part.  In  fact  you  charge  him 
with  directly  corrupting  Justin's  text,  as  well 
as  giving  a  false  version  of  it.  I  know  not,  my 
dear  Sir,  what  editions  either  of  Justin  or  of 
Bull  you  may  have  used.  But  in  .the  edition 
of  Bull's  Works,  in  the  original  Latin,  from 
which  I  quote,  (the  only  one  which  I  have  at 
hand)  and  which  is  the  folio  edition  of  London, 
1703- — I  find  that  the  Bishop  gives  the  text 
from  Justin's  original  exactly  as  you  give  it,* 

*  Bui.li  Oper,  p.  187\ 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  171 

and  as  I  find  it  in  two  editions  of  Justin  to 
which  I  have  access.  He  does  not,  then,  your- 
self being  judge,  corrupt  the  text.  And,  with 
respect  to  his  rendering  ore  by  quoniam,  in- 
stead of  cum  or  quando,  it  is  certainly  some 
mitigation  of  the  Bishop's  offence,  that,  after 
giving  the  original  text,  as  far  as  I  can  see, 
exactly,  he  annexed,  verbatim,  the  Latin  ver- 
sion which  he  found  made  to  his  hand,  and 
w.hich  is  given  in  both  the  editions  of  Justin 
which  I  have  had  an  opportunity  of  examining; 
one,  that  of  London,  (1723.);  the  other  that 
of  Cologne,  (1686.);  both  fortified  by  the 
authority  of  some  of  the  most  learned  men  of 
Germani/,  France  and  England,  that  the  se- 
venteenth century  pruduccd. 

And,  after  all,  I  have  little  doubt  that  the 
editors,  whose  translation  Bishop  Bull  adopted, 
were  right ;  that  is,  that  they  have  given  the 
true  spirit  of  Justin's  original.  A  learned 
friend  has  expressed  to  me  an  opinion,  which, 
the  more  I  examine,  the  more  I  am  disposed 
with  confidence  to  embrace.  It  is,  that  the 
passage  in  question  has  been  slightly  cor- 
rupted ;  that  Justin  wrote  on  instead  of  ore ; 
and,  of  course,  that  the  proper  translation  is 
quoniam,  and  not  quando.  My  principal 
reason  for  thinking  favourably  of  this  sug- 


172  TESTIMONY  OF 

gestion  is,  that  the  sense  conferred  on  the  pas- 
sage by  introducing  on,  instead  of  ore,  appears 
to  me  to  be  the  only  consistent  sense.  The 
venerable  Father  had  just  before  declared,  that 
the  Son  or  Logos  co-existed  with  the  Father, 
and  was  begotten  before  all  creatures ;  and  he 
proceeds  to  prove  it  by  saying,  since,  or  be- 
cause, by  him  in  the  beginning,  the  Father 
created  all  things ;  in  other  words,  he  must 
have  been  begotten  before  all  creatures,  sin.ce 
he  was  the  Maker  of  all  creatures.  Nothing, 
as  I  conceive,  can  be  more  natural,  direct,  or 
consistent  than  this  reasoning.  But  it  would 
be  strange  indeed  if  Justin,  who  had  said,  the 
moment  before,  that  the  Logos  was  begotten 
before  all  creatures,  should,  in  a  clause  of  the 
same  sentence  immediately  following,  under- 
take to  say,  that  he  was  begotten,  when  those 
creatures  were  made. 

I  am  also  constrained  to  think,  that  you 
have  done  some  injustice  to  Bishop  Bull,  when 
you  allege  that  he  misrepresents  Justin,  in 
making  him  say,  that  no  name  is  given  to  the 
Father  or  the  Son ;  whereas,  you  assert,  Jus- 
tin really  declares  that  the  Son  has  a  name, 
and  has  one,  on  his  principle,  properly  ;  be- 
cause he  was  begotten  when  the  world  was 
created.    Do  you  not,  my  dear  Sir,  misap« 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.        *  173 

prehend  Justin  ?  I  verily  think  you  do.  I 
understand  him  precisely  as  Bishop  Bull  does. 
I  observe  too,  that  Dr.  Waterland,  who  cer- 
tainly is,  in  general,  both  a  careful  and  a  dis- 
cerning reader,  interprets  Justin  in  the  same 
manner.  And  it  appears  to  me  that  if  you 
read  attentively,  a  sentence  or  two  further  on 
than  those  which  you  have  quoted,  you  will  be 
convinced  that  this  interpretation  is  the  true 
one. 

I  have  only  to  say  one  word  more  for  Bishop 
Bull.  You  express  no  little  surprize  that  u  he 
"  should  have  passed  over  in  silence  all  the 
u  passages  from  Justin,  which  militate  so  di- 
"  rectly,"  against  the  doctrine  which  he  at- 
tempted to  support  by  him.  I  can  scarcely 
help  wondering  that  you  should  have  "  passed 
"  over  the  passages'7  of  which  you  speak,  "  in 
silence"  yourself.  For,  as  I  read  Justin,  the 
only  passage  which  you  have  produced  from 
him,  which  in  the  least  degree  seems  to  mili- 
tate (and  I  think  it  only  seems)  against  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  generation,  is  precisely  that 
which  Bishop  Bull  has  quoted  with  the  utmost 
fairness,  and  commented  upon  particularly.  It 
would,  indeed,  be,  I  suspect,  very  hard  for 
any  man  to  produce  such  passages  from  Jus- 
tin, as  you  have  described;  for,  until  I  see 
p2 


174  TESTIMONY  OF 

them,  I  must  seriously  doubt  whether  any  such 
are  to  be  found  in  his  acknowledged  writings. 

Irenjeus,  too,  notwithstanding  all  that  you 
have  said  on  the  other  side,  I  am  constrained 
still  to  consider  and  quote,  as  decisively  in  fa- 
vour of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation.  It 
is  freely  granted,  indeed,  that  like  most  of  the 
early  Fathers,  he  displays  but  little  theological 
accuracy.  Yet  I  am  wholly  unable  to  put  any 
rational  construction  on  such  passages  as  those 
which  I  am  about  to  exhibit,  which  does  not 
make  the  Sonship  of  Christ  to  be  properly 
Divine  and  eternal. 

"  Having  plainly  shewn,"  says  Irenseus, 
"  that  the  Word,  which  was  with  God  in  the 
"  beginning,  by  whom  all  things  were  made, 
u  and  who  was  always  present  with  mankind, 
<•  was,  in  the  last  times,  according  to  the  pre- 
"  determination  of  the  Father,  united  to  his 
"  own  creature,  being  made  man,  capable  of 
••'  suffering  :  there  is  no  room  for  the  contra- 
"  diction  of  those  who  say,  if  Christ  was  then 
"  born,  he  did  not  exist  before.  For  we  have 
"  shewn  that  the  Son  of  God  did  not  then  begin 
"  to  be,  having  always  existed  with  the  Fa- 
"  ther  ,•  but  when  he  was  incarnate  and  made 
i(  man,  he  took  upon  himself  the  sad  forlorn 
"  condition  of  man,  compendiously  procuring 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  175 

••  salvation  for  us ;  that  so  what  we  had  lost  in 
"  Adam,  the  likeness  and  similitude  of  God, 
"  we  might  recover  in  Jesus  Christ.  For  since 
"  it  was  impossible,  that  he  who  was  once  sub- 
"  dued,  and  cast  off  by  disobedience,  should  be 
"  renewed,  and  receive  the  reward  of  victory ; 
"  and  since  it  was  also  impossible  that  he  who 
i'  had  fallen  under  sin,  should  obtain  salvation  5 
"  the  Son,  who  was  the  Word  of  God,  descend- 
u  ing  from  the  Father,  submitting  even  to 
f*  death,  and  perfecting  the  dispensation  of  our 
"  salvation,  accomplished  both."* 

Again,  the  same  Father  asserts — "  the 
ft  Son,  from  eternity,  co-existed  with 
"  the  Father  ;  and  from  the  beginning  he 
"  always  revealed  the  Father  to  angels  and 
u  archangels,  and  principalities  and  powers, 
"  and  all  to  whom  it  pleased  him  to  reveal 

"  him."f 

Again,  (Lib.  iv.  cap.  20.)  he  says,  "That 
"  the  Word,  that  is  the  Son  of  God,  al- 
"  ways  existed  with  the  Father,  I  have 
"  largely  demonstrated." 

Again,  in  the  same  chapter,  he  says — "  The 
"  Father  made  all  things  by  himself,  that  is  by 
"  his  Word  and  his  Wisdom.     For  his  Word 

*  Irencei  {Benedict.  Edit.)  Lib.  iii.  cap.  18. 
t  /fcc/.  Lib,  ii.  cap.  30. 


176  TESTIMONY  OP 

"  and  Wisdom,  that  is,  his  Son  and  Spirit, 
<*  have  been  always  present  with  him,  and  by 
"  them  and  in  them,  he  freely  and  sponta- 
"  neously  made  all  things." 

In  another  place,  Irenxus  thus  speaks  to  the 
Gnosticks — "  A  certain  Prophet  says  of  him 
"  (the  Son  of  God)    Who  shall  declare  his 
66  generation  ?  But  ye,  conjecturing  the  man- 
"  ner  of  generation  from  the   Father,   and 
"  transferring  the  utterance  of  a  word,  made 
"  by  the  tongue  of  men,  to  the  Word  of  God, 
"  are  justly  detected  by  us  in  gross  ignorance 
"  both  of  things  human  and  divine.     Being 
"  unreasonably  puffed  up,   ye  boldly  profess 
"  to  know  the  unspeakable  mysteries  of  God. 
"  Although  even  the  Lord  himself,  the  Son  of 
"  God,  hath  granted  that  the  Father  alone  knows 
U  the  day  of  judgment,  expressly  declaring — 
"  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man, 
"  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only.     If, 
u  then,  the  Son  was  not  ashamed  to  refer  tin 
"  knowledge  of  that  day  to  the  Father,  neithei 
a  do  we  blush  to  reserve  to  God  things  moi 
u  difficult  with  respect  to  us.     For  no  one 
H  above  his  Master.     If  any  one,  then,  sha] 
"  ask  us,  How  is  the  Son  produced  by  th< 
"  Father  ?    We  answer  him,   that  no  mai 
*<  knows  that  production,  or  generation,  oi 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  177 

u  utterance,  or  revelation,  or  whatever  you 
u  please  to  call  it,  since  it  is  inexplicable.  It 
M  is  understood  by  no  man ;  neither  by  Valen- 
"  tinus,  nor  Marcion,  nor  Saturninus,  nor 
u  Basilides,  nor  angels,  nor  archangels,  nor 
"  principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  any  one,  ex- 
*f  cept  the  Father  alone  who  begat,  and  the 
u  Son  who  is  begotten  of  him.  Since,  then, 
"  his  generation  is  inexplicable,  they  who  at- 
"  tempt  to  explain  the  generations,  or  produc- 
"  tions,  are  beside  themselves,  promising  to 
"  explain  things  inexplicable ;  for  that  a  wTord 
H  is  produced  by  thought  and  sense,  all  men 
"  know."* 

In  another  place,  Irenxus,  describing  the 
faith  of  a  true  spiritual  man,  a  real  christian, 
concerning  the  holy  Trinity,  expresses  himself 
thus — "  He  has  all  things ;  he  has  an  entire 
w  faith  in  the  one  Almighty  God,  from  whom 
u  are  all  things ;  a  firm  persuasion  in  our  Lord 
"  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  by  whom  are 
u  all  things  ;  and  in  his  dispensations  by  which 
44  the  Son  of  God  was  made  man ;  and  a  true 
u  knowledge  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  who, 
"  through  every  age  represents  to  men,  ac- 
"  cording  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  the  dis- 
"  pensations  of  the  Father  and  the  Son."f 

*  Irenjbj  opcr. Lib.  ii. cap.  28.  p.  158.        f  Lib.  iv.  eap.  33.  p.  272. 


178  TESTIMONY  OF 

The  conclusion  from  these  passages,  I  ac- 
knowledge, strikes  me  as  irresistible.  If  the 
Son  of  God,  as  Son,  never  began  to  be,  but 
always  existed  with  the  Father ;  if  he  was  al- 
ways present  with  the  Father,  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  Holy  Spirit  was,  that  is  dis- 
tinctly and  personally,  which  one  of  the  ex- 
tracts seems  to  declare ;  if  the  Word,  (which 
you  grant  the  JLnte-Nicene  Fathers  consider 
as  divine  and  eternal)  was,  according  to  Ire- 
nsetis,  begotten,  and  on  that  account  compared 
to  the  utterance  of  a  word  by  the  mouth  of 
man ; — if  the  Son  of  God  was  made  man, 
and  of  consequence  was  Son  before  he  became 
incarnate ; — then  the  Son  was  meant  to  be  re- 
presented by  this  Father  as  Divine  and 
eternal. 

Theophilus,  pastor  of  Antioch,  lived  about 
the  same  time  with  Irenseus.  He  not  only  ex- 
pressly calls  Christ  God,  and  declares  that  the 
world  was  made  by  him  ;  but  he  also  goes  on 
to  say,  "  When  the  Father  said,  Let  us  make 
man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness,  He 
spake  to  no  other  but  to  his  own  Word,  his 
own  Wisdom,  that  is  to  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit."  These  he  styles  a  "  Trinity  in  the 
Godhead."* 

*  Theoih.  ad  Mtohjc.  Lib.  ii.  p.  106,  114,  ISO. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  179 

Here,  again,  we  have  the  Word  and  the  Son 
represented  as  the  same — U  The  Wordy  that 
is  the  Son  :"  and  we  have  the  Son,  as  such, 
represented  as  one  of  the  «  Trinity  in  the 
Godhead" — Expressions,  I  should  think,  very 
unequivocally  importing  the  doctrine  of  eter- 
nal Sonship. 

The  testimony  of  Athenagoras,  who  flou- 
rished about  A.  D.  175,  I  can  by  no  means 
consider  as  speaking  the  language  which  you 
ascribe  to  him.  I  will  begin  with  the  same  ex- 
tract which  you  give,  as  your  only  specimen  of 
his  manner  of  writing  on  this  subject. 

"  I  have  sufficiently  demonstrated  that  we 
u  (Christians)  are  not  atheists,  since  we  be- 
"  lieve  in  one  God,  unbegotten,  eternal,  invisi- 
il  ble,  impassible,  incomprehensible,  known 
u  only  by  reason  and  the  Logos,  surrounded 
"  by  light  and  beauty,  and  spirit  and  power 
u  ineffable ;  who  by  his  Logos  created, 
"  adorned,  and  upholds  the  universe.  We  ac- 
"  knowledge  also  a  Son  of  God.  Nor  let  any 
"  one  consider  it  as  ridiculous  that  I  should 
"  attribute  a  Son  to  God  :  not  as  the  poets, 
"  who  in  forming  their  fables,  exhibit  gods  in 
u  no  respect  better  than  men :  we  do  not  thus 
"  think  concerning  God  the  Father,  or  con- 
u  cerning  the  Son.  But  the  Son  of  God  is  the 


180  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  Word  (Aoyog)  of  the  Father  in  manifestation 
"  (YSttx)  and  energy.  Because  for  him,  and  by 
"  him  were  all  things  made,  the  Father  and 
"  the  Son  being  one ;  and  the  Son  is  in  the 
"  Father,  and  the  Father  in  the  Son,  by  the 
"  unity  and  power  of  the  Spirit ;  the  Son  of 
"  God  being  the  mind  and  Aoyog  of  the  Father. 
"  But  if,  by  reason  of  the  excellence  of  your 
¥  understanding,  you  should  still  further  in- 
u  quire  what  we  are  to  understand  by  the  Son, 
"  I  will  briefly  declare  it  to  you.  He  is  the 
"  first  offspring  of  the  Father ;  not  as  made ; 
"  (for  from  the  beginning  God,  being  an  eter- 
"  nal  Mind,  had  in  himself  the  Logos,  being 
"  from  eternity  (toyi^os)  possessed  of  the  Lo- 
"  gos.)  But  of  all  gross  matter,  and  unformed 

iC  nature,  &c. he  came  forth,  that  he 

"  might  be  the  idea  and  energy.  With  this 
"  account  the  prophetick  Spirit  agrees ;  for 
"  he  says,  The  Lord  created  me  in  the  begin- 
u  ning  of  his  progress  to  his  works.  And 
"  even  this  Holy  Spirit,  who  energized  in  the 
"  prophets  when  they  spoke,  we  say  is  an 
"  emanation  from  God.  Like  the  rays  of  the 
"  sun,  it  emanates  from,  and  is  borne  back  to 
<*  him.  Who,  then,  is  not  astonished,  that  we, 
«  who  say  that  there  is  God  the  Father,  God 
«  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit;— that  we 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  181 

0  who  represent  their  power  in  unity,  and 
"  their  distinction  in  order,  should  hear  our- 
"  selves  called  atheists."* 

In  the  same  work,  a  few  pages  afterwards, 
Athcnagoras,  addressing  the  Emperor  and  his 
Son,  who  were  sharers  in  the  throne,  ex- 
presses himself  thus.  u  I  entreat  you,  Supreme 
"  Rulers,  to  bear  with  me,  if  in  my  discourse, 
"  I  should  bring  forth  true  reasons  :  for  I  do 
*'  not  propose  to  myself  to  make  an  attack 
"  upon  idols ;  but  my  object  is  to  repel  ca- 
"  lumnies,  and  to  oifer  the  reasons  of  our  per- 
"  suasion.  You  have  in  yourselves  the  means 
"  of  conceiving  of  the  celestial  kingdom ;  for 
u  as  to  You,  Father  and  Son,  all  things  are 
**  subject,  having  received  the  empire  from 
"  above  (for  the  heart  of  the  king  is  in  the 
"  hands  of  God,  saith  the  prophetic  Spirit) ; 
"  so  also  to  the  one  God,  and  his  Logos,  the 
u  intelligent  and  inseparable  Son,  all  things 
w  are  subjected." f 

One  extract  more  from  this  Father.  6i  For 
;<  we  assert,  that  God,  and  the  Son,  his  Logos, 
"  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  considered  in  regard 
"  to  power,  are  (three)  Father,  Son,  and  Spi- 
il  rit.  But  the  Mind,  and  Logos,  and  Wisdom 

*  Athenag.  Legatio  pro.  Christ,  p.  10,  11.  Edit.  Colon.  Syl- 
burgh.    1686.  f  Ibid.  p.  17. 


182  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  are  the  Son  of  the  Father,  and  an  emanation 
"  from  him;  so  also  is  the  Spirit,  as  light  from 
"  flame."* 

The  translation  which  I  have  given  of  the 
first  of  these  extracts,  does  not  differ  materially 
from  yours :  yet  I  confess  I  am  not  able  to 
read  it  with  your  eyes.  To  me  its  natural, 
direct  construction  appears  very  different  from 
the  interpretation  of  it  which  you  have  given. 
Jlthenagoras  constantly  represents   the   Son 

1  and  the  Logos  as  one  and  the  same ;  using 
the  two  titles  interchangeably, — "  The  Son 
of  God  is  the  Logos" — "  The  Son  of  God  is 
the  Mind  and  Logos  of  the  Father" — "  The 
Logos,  the  intelligent  and  inseparable  Son," 
&c.  He  ascribes  Divinity  to  the  Son,  as  such 
—using  this  expression — God  the  Son.  And 
he,  most  distinctly,  places  the  personality  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  same 
footing;  representing  them  both  as  flowing 
from  the  Father,  or  as  u  an  emanation  from 
him."  But  as  he  evidently  considered  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  an  eternal  Person,  so  we  may 
also  conclude  he  considered  the  Son.  Besides, 

.  the  "  coming  forth"  (npoehduv)  ascribed  to  the 
Son,  is  not  called  by  Mhenagoras  a  genera- 

*  Mhenag.  Legatio  pro.  Christ,  p.  27. 


I 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  183 

Hon  of  the  Son.  Of  course,  the  passage  in 
which  this  expression  occurs,  makes  nothing 
in  favour  of  the  position  for  which  you  con- 
tend ;  as  all  agree  that  when  creation  took 
place,  there  was  what  might  be  called  a  com- 
ing forth  of  the  Divine  Agent. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  comes  next  in 
order.  You  acknowledge,  that  this  Father 
cannot  be  quoted  with  confidence  as  in  your 
favour.  But  you  seem  to  think  at  the  same 
time,  that  he  cannot  be  adduced  as  a  decisive 
witness  in  support  of  my  creed.  I  am  glad  to 
have  from  you  so  explicit  an  acknowledgment 
that  you  can  find  nothing  in  him  that  is  point- 
edly against  me ;  for,  unless  I  am  deceived,  I 
have  found  several  passages  in  this  writer, 
which  it  would  be  difficult  to  construe  in  any 
other  way  than  as  supporting  my  doctrine. 

The  first  which  I  shall  quote,  is  that  which 
occupies  the  first  place  in  your  list  of  citations 
from  this  author.  It  is  in  these  words — u  The 
u  image  of  God  is  his  Logos ;  and  the  Divine 
"  Logos  is  the  genuine  Son  of  understanding 
"  (or  intellect),  the  original  Light  of  Light."* 
Here  Clemens  calls  the  Logos,  the  image  of 
God;  the  very  language  of  the  apostle  con- 

*  Mmonitio  ad  Gentes.  p.  62.  Edit.  Sylburg.  Colon.  1688. 


184  TESTIMONY  OF 

cerning  the  first-begotten  Son ;  Col.  i.  15. 
Again ;  he  calls  this  very  Logos  the  Son,  the 
genuine  Son  of  intellect — A  mode  of  expression 
in  which  he  is  literally  followed  by  Basil  and 
Cyril,  who  of  all  the  Post-Nicene  Fathers, 
were  among  the  most  decisive  and  zealous  ad- 
vocates of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son. 
They  both  speak  of  the  Son  familiarly,  as 
"  coming  forth  (ex  rov  Nou)  from  intellect."* 
And,  with  respect  to  the  phrase  "  original 
Light  of  Light"  it  is  in  itself  so  expressive 
of  underived  glory,  and  so  remarkably  similar 
to  the  language  of  the  Nicene  Creed  itself, 
that  I  imagine  most  readers  will  consider  it  as 
designating  the  divine  generation  which  that 
Creed  maintains. 

The  next  passage  to  which  I  would  refer 
you,  is  the  following — "  The  Divine  Word, 
"  most  manifestly  the  true  God,  who  was  equal 
"  to  the  Lord  of  all  things ;  for  he  was  his 
"  Son,  (oti  v\v  viog  avrov)  and  the  Word  was 
"  in  God."f  Stronger  terms  could  hardly 
have  been  used.  Here  Clement  declares  that 
the  Saviour  is  truly  God ;  that  he  is  the  Di- 
vine Word  5  that  he  is  equal  to  God  the  Fa- 

*  Basil.  Homil.  in  Johan.  i.  Tom.  i.  p.  506.  Cyril  in  Thesmtre, 
Tom.  v.  p.  45.  43. 

t  Admmitio  ad  Gentesy  p.  68 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  185 

ther ;  for  this  reason,  because  he  is  the  Son 
of  God.  This  appears  to  me  perfectly  decisive 
evidence  that  he  believed  in  a  divine  and  es- 
sential Sonship. 

The  third  passage  on  which  I  rely  is  one  to 
which  you  allude,  in  which  Clement  expressly 
ascribes  eternity  to  the  Son.  "  The  eternal 
"  Son  (viog  aiStog)  overcoming  is  a  lovely  spec- 
"  tacle  to  the  Father."*  This  language  I  con- 
sider as  requiring  no  comment. 

Again,  Clement  says,  "  The  Son  is  the  per- 
(i  feet  Word,  born  of  the  perfect  Father." 
And  again,  "  The  God  of  all  things  is  only 
"  one  good  and  just  Creator,  the  Son  in  the 
"  Father."f  From  these  expressions  we  may 
undoubtedly  gather,  that  in  the  view  of  this 
Father,  the  Son  and  the  Word  were  regarded 
as  the  same ;  and  as  he,  in  a  number  of  places, 
declares  that  the  Word  was  eternally  with 
God,  and  that  this  eternal  Word  was  begotten 
of  the  mind,  or  substance  of  the  Father ;  so 
we  may  infer  that  he  considered  the  Son  as 
eternal,  agreeably  to  his  express  declaration 
in  a  passage  before  cited.  Nor  is  the  next 
clause  less  decisive.  When  he  says  that  "  God 
is  one  good  and  just  Creator,  the  Son  in 

*  Admonitio  ad  Gentes%  p.  75. 
|  Pedagog.  Lib.  i.  cap.  vi.  92. 

Q2 


186  TESTIMONY  OF 

the  Father,"  could  he  employ  language  more 
strongly  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  Sonship 
was  essential  and  eternal  in  the  Godhead  ? 

You  have  quoted  a  passage  from  the  sixth 
book  of  the  Stromata  of  Clement,  your  version 
of  which  I  would  request  you,  for  a  moment, 
to  reconsider.  In  the  edition  of  Clement  which 
I  use,  it  stands  thus,  as  nearly  as  I  can  give  it. 
"  There  is  one  unbegotten  Being,  the  Al- 
"  mighty  God.-  And  there  is  one  begotten  be- 
"  fore  all  things,  by  whom  all  things  were  made 
u  and  without  whom  nothing  was  made.  For 
"  there  is  one  true  God,  who  created  the  be- 
"  ginning  of  all  things,  by  whom  is  meant  the 
"first-begotten  Son,  as  Peter  writes,  who 
"  accurately  understood  that  passage,  In  the 
u  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
"  earth.  This  is  he  who  is  called  Wisdom  by 
"  all  the  Prophets,  &c."* 

It  does  appear  to  me  that  this  translation 
gives  the  sense  of  Clement  more  perspicuously, 
to  say  the  least,  than  your's ;  and  that  the  ge- 
nuine aspect  of  it,  as  thus  exhibited,  is  alto- 
gether in  favour  of  my  doctrine.  Indeed,  if 
the  doctrine  of  eternal  Sonship  be  not  taught 
in  this  passage,  I  must  despair  of  finding  it  in 

*  Stromata,  Lib,  vi.  p.  644 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  187 

any  document  of  antiquity.  For  I  cannot  per- 
ceive that  any  of  those  whom  you  acknowledge 
to  be  its  advocates,  present  it  a  whit  more 
clearly  or  strongly  than  Clement. 

Hippolytus,  who  flourished  about  A.D. 
220,  commenting  on  that  strong  declaration 
concerning  the  Son  of  God,  which  is  found  in 
Philip,  ii.  9.  writes  thus — "  He,  (the  Son)  is 
"  said  to  be  exalted,  as  having  wanted  that  ex- 
"  altation  before ;  but  this  is  said  in  respect 
u  only  of  his  humanity.  And  he  has  also  a 
"  name  given  him,  as  a  matter  of  favour,  which 
"  is  above  every  name,  as  the  blessed  Paulex- 
irpresses  it.  But  in  truth  and  reality,  this 
"  was  not  the  giving  him  any  thing  which  he 

"  HAD  NOT  NATURALLY  FROM  THE  BEGINNING. 

u  So  far  from  it,  that  we  are  rather  to  esteem 
"  it  his  returning  to  what  he  had  in  the  be- 
u  ginning,  essentially  and  unalterably  : 
"  on  which  account  it  is,  that  he,  having  con- 
"  descended  to  put  on  the  humble  garb  of 
"  humanity,  said,  Father,  glorify  me  with 
:i  the  glory  ivhich  I  had  with  thee  before  the 
'*  world  was.  For  he  was  always  invested 
u  with  Divine  glory,  having  been  co-exis- 
"  tent  with  his  Father  before  all  ages,  and 
"  before  all  time,  and  the  foundation  of  the 


188  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  world."*  Again,  the  same  writer  says — 
u  We  can  have  no  right  conception  of  the  One 
*  God,  but  by  believing  in  a  real  Father, 
"  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost."f 

In  the  days  of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  oc- 
curred the  Council  of  Antioch,  which  was 
convened  with  a  principal  reference  to  the 
heresy  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  At  this  council, 
six  Bishops,  probably  with  the  full  concurrence 
of  all  the  rest  of  the  members,  addressed  a 
Letter  to  Paul,  which  was  intended  to  discoun- 
tenance and  put  down  his  heresy,  and  which 
appears  to  me  clearly  to  evince  that  the  wri- 
ters fully  believed  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal 
Sonship  of  Christ.  Among  other  passages  in 
that  letter  the  following  occur. — Speaking  of 
the  Son,  they  say  "  He  is  the  Wisdom,  the 
"  Word,  and  the  power  of  God,  existing  be- 
"fore  ages,  not  in  foreknowledge,  but  in  es~ 
w  sence  and  subsistence,  God  and  the  Son  of 

U  God" "  We  believe  him  always  to  have 

"  existed  with  the  Father,  and  to  have  ful- 
«  filled  the  Father's  will  in  the  creation  of  all 
"  things;"! 

*  Hippoltt.  Tom.  ii.  p.  29.  Fabric,  edit. 
f  Hipp,  contra  Noet.  p.  16. 

*  Bibliatheca  Patrum.  Tom,  ii.  quoted  from  Bun.  Def  Fi<l 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  189 

The  celebrate^  Confession  of  Faith,  by 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  who  flourished 
about  A.D.  235,  was  given  at  large,  in  my 
*4  Letters  on  Unitarianism f?  and  there  would 
be  no  need  of  repeating  it  here,  were  it  not 
probable  that  this  page  may  be  perused  by 
some  who  have  never  seen  my  former  publi- 
cation. It  is  in  the  following  strong  language. 
"  There  is  one  God,  the  Father  of  the  living 
u  Word,  of  the  subsisting  Wisdom  and  Power, 
"  and  of  Him  who  is  his  eternal  image  :  the 
"  the  perfect  Begetter  of  Him  that  is  Perfect, 
€i  the  Father  of  the  only  begotten  Son.  There 
"  is  one  Lord,  the  Only  of  the  Only,  God  of  God, 
"  the  Character  and  Image  of  the  Godhead ; 
u  the  powerful  Word,  the  comprehensive 
"  Wisdom,  by  which  all  things  were  made, 
u  and  the  Power  that  gave  being  to  the  whole 
(i  creation :  the  true  Son  of  the  true  Father, 
"  the  Invisible  of  the  Invisible,  the  Incorrupti- 
"  ble  of  the  Incorruptible,  the  Immortal  of  the 
"  Immortal,  and  the  Eternal  of  Him  that  is 
u  Eternal.  There  is  one  Holy  Ghost,  having 
"  its  subsistence  of  God,  which  appeared 
•'•'  through  the  Son  to  mankind,  the  perfect 
"  image  of  the  perfect  Son  ;  the  Life  giving 
"  Life  ;  the  holy  Fountain  ;  the  Sanctity  and 

the  author  of  Sanctification ;  by  whom  God 


.; 


190  TESTIMONY  OF 

1*  the  Father  is  made  manifest ;  who  is  over 
"  all,  and  in  all ;  and  God  the  Son,  who  is 
"  through  all.  A  perfect  Trinity,  which 
6i  neither  in  eternity,  glory,  or  wisdom  is  di- 
"  vided,  or  separated  from  itself/'* 

You  call  in  question  the  genuineness  of  this 
creed  ;  and  refer  to  Martini  for  your  reasons. 
I  have  had  no  opportunity  of  seeing  what  that 
writer  has  said  on  this  point ;  hut  have  cer- 
tainly never  met  with  any  thing  which  ap- 
peared to  me  sufficient  to  lead  to  a  denial,  or 
even  a  serious  doubt,  that  it  is  the  genuine 
work  of  Gregory.  Not  only  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
who  is  a  high  authority,  but  also  Basil,  who  is 
at  least  as  high,  vouch  in  the  most  decisive 
manner  for  its  authenticity.  The  learned 
Bingham,  too,  and  Bishop  Bull,  among  the 
moderns,  have  vindicated  the  credit  of  this 
creed,  in  a  very  satisfactory  manner,  f  The 
greater  part,  if  I  mistake  not,  of  those  who 
have  endeavoured  to  decry  it  as  spurious,  have 
been  Brians  or  Socinians. 

Origen  is  unquestionably  a  very  decisive 
advocate  of  the  eternal  Sonship  of  Christ.  The 


*  Gregor.  JYeocasar.  Oper.  p.  1.  apud.  Gregor.  Nyss.  Tom. 
ili.  p.  546. 

f  Bingham's  Origines  Ecclesiastics  ;  Book  x.  Chap.  5.  Buxu 
Defens.  Fid.  Mc.  Sect.  2.  Cap.  12.  2. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  191 

following  passages,  I  should  suppose,  could 
leave  no  one  in  doubt  as  to  this  fact.  Athana- 
sius  cites  him  as  saying— u  If  he  is  the  Image 
"  of  the  invisible  God,  the  Image  is  invisible ; 
u  and  I  dare  add,  if  he  is  the  likeness  of  the 
"  Father,  no  time  ever  was  when  he  was  not. 
u  For  when  was  God,  who  by  St.  John  is 
"  called  Light,  without  the  splendour  of  his 
"  own  glory,  that  any  one  should  presume  to 
u  assign  a  beginning  to  the  Son,  before  which 

"  he  was  not? Let  him  who  dares  speak 

"  thus — u  There  was  a  time  when  he  was 
"  not"  consider  what  he  says,  namely,  that 
u  there  was  a  time  when  Wisdom  and  Reason 
"  and  Life  w7as  not."*  The  same  Father,  in 
his  commentary  on  those  words  in  the  second 
Psalm — Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  be- 
gotten thee,  expresses  himself  thus — "  It  is 
"  said  to  him  by  God,  with  whom  all  time  is 
"  to-day.  For  he,  I  suppose,  hath  neither 
u  evening  nor  morning ;  but  time,  if  I  may  so 
"  speak,  co- extending  itself  with  his  unbe- 
"  gotten  and  eternal  life,  is  the  to-day  in  which 
"  the  Son  was  begotten ;  so  that  we  find  no  be- 
u  ginning  of  his  generation  any  more  than 
"  of  the  "  to-day."  Again  ;  the  same  Father, 
in  writing  to  Celsus,  says,  "  Let  those  our  ac- 

*  Athanasii  Oper.  Tom.  i.  p.  277. 


192  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  cusers  know,  that  this  Jesus  whom  we  be- 
"  lieve  to  have  been  God,  and  the  Son  of 
"  God,  from  the  beginning,  is  no  other  than 
"  the  Word  himself."*  And,  in  another  part 
"  of  the  same  work,  remarking  on  those  words 
"  of  our  Lord,  Matt.  xi.  27.  No  man  knoiveth 
u  the  Son,  save  the  Father,  §c.  he  says,  w  For 
"  it  is  impossible  that  he  who  was  begotten 
u  from  eternity,  and  who  was  the  first- bom 
"  before  every  creature,  should  be  known,  as 
"  to  his  real  dignity,  by  any  but  the  Father 
*  who  begat  him."f 

Accordingly,  Socrates,  the  ecclesiastical 
historian,  after  expressing  his  wonder  how  it 
could  have  happened,  that  a  certain  great  ad- 
mirer of  Origen,  could  persist  in  retaining  the 
Arian  heresy,  gives  this  reason  for  his  surprize, 
•'•  that  Origen  every  where  confesses  the  Son 
'*  to  be  co-eternal  with  the  Father." 

The  following  Creed,  delivered  by  Origen, 
in  his  work  entitled,  Of  First  Principles,  not 
only  ascertains  his  own  belief  on  this  subject, 
but  also  the  doctrine  of  the  church  in  his  day. 
u  The  things  which  are  manifestly  handed 

"  DOWN  TO  US  BY  THE  APOSTOLICAL  PREACH- 

u  ing  are  these ;  First,  that  there  is  one  God, 

*  Contra  Celsum.  1.  3.  p.  1 35.  Cantab.  Edit.  1677. 
t  lb.  lib.  6.  p.  287. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  193 

Ci  who  created  and  formed  all  things,  &c,  The 
l<  next  article  is,  that  Jesus  Christ,  who  came 
"  into  the  world,  was  begotten  of  the  Fa- 

<'  THER    BEFORE   EVERY  CREATURE,    and  wllO 

"  ministering  to  his  Father  in  the  creation  of 
"  all  things;  (for  by  Him  all  things  were  made,) 
u  in  the  last  times  made  himself  of  no  reputa- 
<<  tion,  and  became  man.  He  who  was  God  was 
"  made  flesh;  and  when  he  was  a  man,  he  con- 
u  tinued  the  same  God  that  he  was  before. 
"  They  also  delivered  unto  us  that  the  Holy 
"  Ghost  was  joined  in  the  same  honour  and 
"  dignity  with  the  Father  and  the  Son."* 

Again;  Origen,  in  his  commentary  on  John, 
says,  "  The  Sabellians  did  not  only  make  the 
"  Father  and  the  Son  one  in  essence  (which 
"  the  church  also  did;)  but  they  carried 
U  it  so  far  as  to  make  them  one  subject,  or  hy~ 
u  postasis,  having  only  a  nominal,  not  a  real 
"  distinction."  Here  Origen  not  only  tells  us 
what  he  thought  correct ;  but  he  also  informs 
us  what  the  church  in  his  day  believed — and 
hat  the  Son,  as  Son,  was  one  in  essence  with 
Father ;  and,  of  course,  Divine  and 
al. 

Again,  in  his  work  on  First  Principles  (Lib. 


*  Origen.  Tom  i.  p.  665. 

R 


194  TESTIMONY  OF 

i.  cap.  2.)  he  expresses  himself  thus — "  Now 
"  that  you  may  know  the  omnipotence  of  the 
"  Father  and  the  Son  to  be  one  and  the  same, 
U  as  he  is  one  and  the  same  God  and  Lord 
"  with  the  Father,  hear  what  John  saith  in 
"  the  Apocalypse — These  things,  saith  the 
"  Lord,  which  is,  and  which  was,  and  ivhich 
"  is  to  come,  the  Almighty,  For  who  is  the 
"  Almighty  that  is  to  come,  but  Christ?" 

In  commenting  on  those  words  in  the  Epistle 
to  Titus — An  heretick,  after  the  first  and  se- 
cond admonition,  reject9  tyc.  Origen  says — 
"  Let  us  describe  as  well  as  we  can,  what  an 
H  heretick  is.  Every  one  who  professes  to  be- 
"  lieve  in  Christ,  and  yet  says,  there  is  one 
"  God  of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  ano- 
M  ther  of  the  Gospels,  &c.  Our  opinion  must 
«  be  the  same  concerning  those  who  have  any 
"  false  notions  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  whe- 
"  ther  according  to  them  who  say  he  was  born 
U  of  Joseph  and  Mary;  such  are  the  Ebionites 
"  and  Valentinians :  or  according  to  them  who 
"  deny  him  to  be  the  First-born,  the  God 
"  of  the  whole  creation,  the  Word,  and 
"  Wisdom,  which  is  the  beginning  of  the  ways 
"  of  God,  begotten  before  any  thing  was 
"  made,  before  the  foundation  of  the  worlds, 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  195 

"  before  all  the  hills  5  and  those  who  say  that 
"  he  is  only  man."* 

The  only  remark  which  I  shall  offer  on  this 
extract  is,  that  Origen,  while,  according  to 
your  own  acknowledgment,  he  maintained  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  yet  expresses 
himself  on  the  subject  in  exactly  the  same  lan- 
guage with  most  of  the  other  Ante-Nicene  Fa- 
thers. He  says  the  Son  was  begotten  before 
any  thing  was  made —  before  the  foundation 
of  the  worlds,  &c. 

But  there  is  no  need  of  dwelling  on  the  tes- 
timony of  this  father,  since  you  freely  acknow- 
ledge that  he  decisively  maintained  the  doc- 
trine of  eternal  generation.  You  attempt,  how- 
ever, to  take  away  the  force  of  this  concession, 
by  alleging  "  that  it  was  Ori gen's  philosophy 
€i  which  led  him  to  embrace  this  doctrine ;  the 
"  same  philosophy  which  led  him  to  maintain 
i(  the  eternity  of  the  world,  or  of  the  crea- 
M  tion."  I  shall  not  now  undertake  to  discuss 
the  subject  of  Origerts  philosophical  opinions, 
on  which  so  much  has  been  written,  and  so 
many  different  judgments  pronounced.  I  have 
never  yet  seen  any  thing,  however,  to  convince 
me  that  his  views  of  the  Redeemer's  Person 

*  Pamphili.  Apologia.  Ap.  Hieronymi.  op.  Tom.  ix.  p,  117, 
&lit.  Victor. 


196  TESTIMONY  OF 

were  materially  modified  by  his  philosophy. 
But,  be  this  as  it  may,  I  think  that  any  one 
who  glances  at  the  preceding  extracts  will  be 
of  the  opinion,  that  Origen  speaks  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Sonship  of  Christ,  very  much  in  the 
same  language  with  the  great  body  of  the 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  who  certainly  did  not 
adopt  the  singular  opinions  to  which  you  re- 
fer. Besides ;  Origen,  in  telling  us  what  he 
believed  on  this  subject,  more  than  once  de- 
clares, ythat  HIS  DOCTRINE  WAS  THAT  OF  THE 

church  in  his  day  $  that  it  was  "  manifestly 
"  handed  down  by  apostolical  tradition,  &c." 
But  if,  as  you  agree,  and  no  doubt  correctly, 
he  really  believed  and  taught  the  doctrine  of 
the  eternal  Sonship  of  the  Saviour,  I  see  not 
but  that  you  will  be  obliged  to  grant  that  it 
was  the  general  doctrine  of  the  church  of  that 
age,  and  understood  to  be  the  doctrine  taught 
by  the  apostles. 

Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  who 
flourished  about  A.D.  250,  is  a  very  decisive 
witness  on  this  subject.  You  observe  that  he 
has  been  claimed  by  both  parties,  and  seem  to 
place  but  little  reliance  on  his  authority.  You 
give,  however,  two  extracts  from  his  writings, 
which  would  seem  to  indicate  pretty  strongly 
that  he  was  no  believer  in  the  doctrine  of 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  197 

eternal  generation.  These  it  is  not  necessary 
to  repeat.  I  acknowledge  that  if  we  were  to 
judge  solely  from  these  passages,  my  side  of 
the  question  could  hope  for  little  aid  from  this 
father. 

But  it  escaped  your  recollection,  that  this 
same  Dionysius,  afterwards  finding,  that  the 
very  passages  which  you  quote,  and  others 
like  them,  which  he  had  written,  had  given 
great  offence  to  the  orthodox,  and  encourage- 
ment to  the  hereticks,  and  were  likely  very 
seriously  to  impair  his  ecclesiastical  standing ; 
he  explained,  retracted,  and  left  it  no  longer 
doubtful  what  he  considered  as  orthodox,  and 
what  was  generally  considered  so  in  his  day. 
The  following  extracts,  derived  from  the  same 
source  with  those  which  you  make  use  of,  will, 
I  think,  preclude  all  uncertainty  as  to  the  light 
in  which  Dionysius  ought  to  be  regarded  in 
reference  to  the  subject  under  review. 

Having  been  charged  with  believing  and 
saying,  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son 
was  not,  and  that  God  the  Father  was  not  al- 
ways Father,  he  professes  that  he  did  from  the 
heart  acknowledge,  and  always  had  acknow- 
ledged, the  co-eternity  of  the  Son.  In  the  first 
Book  of  his  Refutation  and  Apology,  he  ex- 
pressly says — "  There  never  was  a  time  when 
b2 


198  TESTIMONY  Of 

u  God  was  not  a  Father."  And  soon  after  he 
expresses  himself  thus  concerning  the  Son  of 
God — "  Since  he  is  the  Effulgence  of  the  eter- 
"  nal  Light,  he  himself  is  altogether  eternal; 
u  for  since  the  Light  is  always,  the  Effulgence, 
"  it  is  manifest,  must  also  be  always."  Again, 
he  says — "  God  is  an  eternal  Light,  without 
"  beginning  or  end ;  and  therefore  an  eternal 
"  Effulgence  is  projected  by  him,  co-exists 
"  with  him  without  beginning,  and  always 
"  bornP*  Further  he  says,  "  The  Son  alone 
"  is  always  co- existent  with  the  Father,  and  is 
"  filled  with  the  existent  being,  and  is  himself 
**  existent  from  the  Father."  Dionysius  also  se- 
verely censures  Paul  of  Samosata,  because  he 
would  not  call  Christ  the  co-eternal  character  of 
God  the  Father's  Person.  And,  in  the  same  work, 
he  thus  declares  the  eternity  of  the  Son — "  As 
"  then  we  perceive,  when  one  takes  from  one 
«  of  our  material  fires,  and  neither  affects  nor 
¥  divides  it  in  the  kindling  of  one  light  from 
u  another,  but  the  fire  remains;  so,  incompre- 
"  hensibly,  is  the  eternal  generation  of  Christ 
"  from  the  Father."  Finally,  he  expresses 
himself  in  these  very  decisive  words — "  I  have 
"  written,    do   write,    confess,    believe,    and 

■  \thanasii  Ofier.  Tom,  I  p.  559, 560,  Edit.  Paris  1627, 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  199 

u  preach,  that  Christ  is  co-eternal  with 
"  the  Father,  the  only  begotten  Son 
"  and  Word  of  the  Father/'* 

On  these  extracts  I  only  stop  to  offer  two 
remarks.  The  first  is,  that  they  are  incom- 
parably more  explicit  and  unequivocal  than 
those  which  you  quote ;  inasmuch  as  they  are 
professedly  intended  to  exculpate  the  writer 
from  the  charge  of  holding  the  very  opinion 
which  you  ascribe  to  him.  There  is,  therefore, 
in  these  passages  an  explicitness  which  cannot 
be  exceeded.  The  second  remark  which  I 
have  to  make  is,  that  these  extracts  do  not 
merely  prove,  in  the  most  conclusive  manner, 
that  Dionysins  Alexandrinus  was  a  firm  ad- 
vocate of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation  ; 
but  they  prove  much  more.  They  prove  that 
it  was  the  current  doctrine  of  the  Orthodox  of 
that  day.  The  very  suspicion,  it  seems,  that 
Dionysius  was  not  sound  as  to  this  point, 
drew  down  upon  him  such  general  and  severe 
censure,  that  he  was  constrained  to  defend 
himself  by  making  the  solemn  declarations 
which  have  been  mentioned.  A  Synod  was 
called  at  Rome  to  consider  the  accusation 
against  him,  and  it  was  to  satisfy  the  members 





Bibliotheca  Patrum.Tom.  ii.  p.  276.  284.  287.  299.  as  quoted 
Bishop  Bull  in  his  Erf.  Fid.  Nic.  Sect.  iii.  cap,  iy.  §  3. 


200  TESTIMONY  OF 

of  that  Council,  that  he  wrote  his  "  Apolo- 
"  getical  and  Refutatory  Epistle"  to  Dionysius 
Bishop  of  Rome.  In  his  case,  then,  we  have 
not  only  the  solemn  opinion  on  the  subject  un- 
der consideration,  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria, 
and  Dionysius  of  Rome,  but  also  of  an  impor- 
tant ecclesiastical  Council.  This  single  record, 
it  appears  to  me,  does  more  to  establish  the 
fact,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  Sonship 
of  Christ  was  reckoned  the  orthodox  doctrine 
in  the  Ante-Nicene  Church,  than  many  scores 
of  ordinary  quotations  could  countervail. 

With  respect  to  Dionysius  Bishop  of  Rome, 
who  was  contemporary  with  his  namesake  of 
Alexandria,  you  candidly  acknowledge  that 
his  authority  is  against  you ;  that  he  unequi- 
vocally maintained  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
generation.  This  is  undoubtedly  a  fact.  And 
when  it  is  recollected  that  he  held  so  conspi- 
cuous a  place  in  the  church,  and  possessed 
such  a  commanding  influence  as  history  informs 
us  he  did  possess,  his  opinion  is  surely  of  much 
more  than  ordinary  weight  in  the  scale,  in 
examining  what  was  accounted  orthodoxy  at 
that  time.  As  there  is  no  dispute  about  him, 
a  single  extract  is  sufficient.  In  his  Epistle 
against  the  Sabellians,  he  says — "  It  is  no 
"  common  blasphemy,  nay  it  is  the  greatest,  to 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  201 

"  say  that  the  Lord  was,  after  a  sort,  made 
**  with  hands.  For  if  he  was  made,  there  was 
"  a  time  when  he  was  not.  But  he  always  was." 
Again — u  If  then  the  Son  was  made,  there 
*'*  was  a  time  when  these  things  were  not,  yea 
"  there  was  a  time  when  God  was  without 
*•  these.     But  this  is  very  absurd."* 

Lucian,  a  Presbyter  of  Antioch,  who  flou- 
rished nearly  half  a  century  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice,  and  who  was  greatly  distinguished 
as  a  student  of  the  scriptures,  as  well  as  a 
martyr  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  is  an  important 
and  very  unequivocal  witness  on  this  subject. 
I  really  think  you  have  not  done  justice  to  the 
testimony  of  this  Father.  Let  me  beg  you  to 
review  the  following  Creed,  which  we  are  as- 
sured was  drawn  lip  by  him.  H  We  believe, 
"  agreeably  to  evangelical  and  apostolical  tra- 
*'•'  dition,  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty, 
"  creator  and  maker  of  all  things ;  and  in  one 
•'•'  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  begotten  Son, 
V  God ;  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  be- 
•'*'  gotten  of  the  Father  before  all  worlds,  God 
«  of  God,  Whole  of  Whole,  Alone  of  Alone, 
"  Perfect  of  Perfect,  King  of  King,  Lord  of 
"  Lord,  the  living  Word,  Wisdom,  Life,  the 
"  true  Light,  the  way  of  Truth,  the  ftesur- 

*  Atuaxasii  Oper.  Tom.  i.  276. 


202  TESTIMONY  OP 

"  rection,  the  Shepherd,  the  Door,  immutable 
44  and  unchangeable,  the  exact  Image  of  the 
u  Godhead,  the  Essence,  Power,  Counsel  and 
u  Glory  of  the  Father,  the  first-born  of  every 
"  creature,  who  was  in  the  beginning  with 
"  God,  God  the  Word,  as  it  is  written  in  the 
u  Gospel,  The  Word  was  God,  by  whom  all 
"  things  were  made,  and  in  whom  all  things 
"  consist,  who  in  the  last  days  came  down 
u  from  heaven,  and  was  born  of  the  Virgin, 
"  according  to  the  scriptures.  And  in  the 
"  Holy  Ghost,  who  was  given  to  believers  for 
u  their  comfort,  sanctification  and  perfection, 
u  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  commanded  his 
"  disciples,  saying,  Go  ye,  therefore,  disciple 
u  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
u  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
"  Ghost;  namely,  of  the  Father,  who  is  truly 
u  Father,  of  the  Son,  who  is  truly  Son,  and 
u  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  truly  Holy  Ghost. 
"  The  words  not  being  simple  words,  of  no 
w  signification,  but  accurately  denoting  the 
"  subsistence  of  every  one  named,  and  their 
"  glory  and  order ;  so  that  they  are  in  sub- 
"  sistence  Three,  in  consent  One." 

This  Creed  is  distinctly  recorded  by  Atha- 
nasius*,  {Be  Synod.  JLrimin.  et  Seleuc*  Tom. 
i.  p.  875.) ;  by  Socrates,  the  ecclesiastical  his- 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  203 

torian  {Lib,  ii.  cap.  10.)  And  by  Hilary,  (Be 
Synodis,  p.  107.)  who  comments  upon  it,  and 
vindicates  it  from  the  objections  which  some 
made  against  it  as  favouring  the  Arians.  He 
not  only  speaks  of  it  as  the  genuine  work  of 
Lacian,  but  also  as  having  received  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Council  of  Jlntioch,  which  met 
A.  D.  341 ;  "  a  Synod,  as  he  says  of  ninety- 
"  five  holy  bishops,  who  intended  thereby  to 
"  establish  the  Catholick  faith,  chiefly  against 
"  the  Sabellians,  though  not  without  a  suffi.- 
u  cient  guard  against  the  Jlnomgeans,  or 
a  Avians" 

You  remark,  that  Bishop  Bull  has  omitted 
Lucian  in  his  list  of  writers  who  testify  in 
favour  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation. 
If  the  fact  had  been  so,  it  would  afford  no  small 
presumption  that  the  Bishop  did  not  consider 
him  as  a  witness  of  much  value.  This,  how- 
ever, is  not  exactly  the  case.  It  is  true  that 
the  learned  Bull  has  not  adduced  the  testimony 
of  this  Father  in  that  particular  chapter  which 
treats  of  the  co-etevnity  of  the  Son  of  God ; 
but  he  has  very  carefully  and  pointedly  brought 
it  forward  in  a  preceding  chapter,  to  which  he 
refers  his  readers  in  the  commencement  of  the 
subsequent  one,  as  not  needing  to  be  repeated. 
He  evidently  lays  great  stress  upon  the  ex- 


204  TESTIMONY  OF 

tract  which  he  gives  from  Lucian,  and  with 
great  confidence  decides,  that  there  is  every 
reason  to  consider  it  as  genuine. 

Pamphilus,  the  martyr,  a  Presbyter  of 
Cesarea,  a  little  after  Origen,  has  also  left 
ample  evidence  that  he  was  a  firm  believer  in 
the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation.  In  his 
JLpology  for  Origen,  he  strenuously  defends 
that  Father  against  some  who  doubted  or  de- 
nied his  orthodoxy;  and  affirms  that  his,  (Ori- 
gen's)  firm  belief  was,  that  "  The  Father  was 
"  not  before  the  Son,  but  the  Son  co-eternal 
"  with  the  Father,  and  that  the  generation 
ii  of  the  Son  was  without  a  beginning"* 
Here  is  a  testimony  of  peculiar  value.  It  not 
only  tells  us  what  Pamphilus  thought  of  this 
matter ;  and  renders  assurance  doubly  sure, 
that  Origen  was  of  the  same  mind ;  but  it  also 
gives  us  to  understand  that  this  was  the  Or- 
thodox doctrine  of  that  day;  inasmuch  as 
Pamphilus  considered  it  as  a  slur  on  the  cha- 
racter of  Origen  to  impute  to  him  any  other 
doctrine,  and  thought  proper  to  defend  him 
from  the  charge,  as  likely,  if  believed,  to  do 
him  a  serious  injury  in  the  estimation  of  the 
church. 

*  Quoted  from  Bull.  Def.  Fid.  J\'ic.  Sect.  iii.  cap.  iy.  §  8. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  205 

Theognostus,  of  Alexandria,  who  lived 
about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  in  his 
second  Book  of  Instructions,  expresses  himself 
thus.  "  The  substance  of  the  Son  is  not  some- 
"  thing  brought  in  from  without.  He  was  not 
"  produced  out  of  nothing ;  but  was  begotten 
u  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  as  the  ray  is 
"  of  the  light,  or  as  vapour  is  of  the  water ; 
"  for  the  vapour  is  not  water,  nor  is  the  ray 
u  light ;  but  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  is 
u  foreign  to  that  which  produces  it.  Thus  the 
"  Son  is,  as  it  were,  the  gentle  flowing  of  the 
"  substance  of  the  Father  5  yet  so  that  the  Fa- 
"  ther  suffers  no  division.  For  as  the  sun  is  not 
u  diminished,  though  it  produces  rays  con- 
«  tinually ;  so  likewise  the  Father  is  not  di- 
"  minished  in  begetting  the  Son,  who  is  his 
"  image."*  Surely,  as  Bishop  Bull  justly  ar- 
gues, if  the  Sonship  of  Christ  was  not  some- 
thing superinduced,  or  "  brought  in,"  it  was 
eternal.  The  same  thing  is  also  implied  in  the 
declaration,  that  the  Son  is  begotten  from  the 
Father's  substance,  as  light  from  light.  And  all 
these  conclusions  are  rendered  more  certain 
from  the  consideration  that  Theognostus  was 
a  disciple  of  Origen,  whom  you  acknowledge 


*  Athahasii  Oper.  Tom.  i.  p.  274. 


: 


206  TESTIMONY  OF 

to  have  been  a  firm  believer  in  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  generation. 

Methodius,  also,  notwithstanding  what  you 
have  said  of  him,  I  cannot  but  consider  as  a 
good  and  undoubted  witness  for  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  Sonship.  Your  first  three  quotations 
from  him,  furnish,  in  my  opinion,  no  proof 
whatever,  not  even  plausable  presumption,  of 
his  belief  in  the  notion  of  mere  ante-mundane 
generation.  They  are  plainly  reconcileable 
with  the  doctrine  for  which  I  plead.  But  the 
fourth,  which  you  find  in  Bishop  Bull,  and  on 
which  you  think  that  learned  and  able  writer 
has  laid  much  more  stress  than  he  ought,  I 
must  believe,  with  him,  to  be  very  clear  in 
favour  of  eternal  filiation.  Methodius,  in 
commenting  on  those  words  of  the  Psalmist, 
Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee,  expresses  himself  as  follows — "  It  is  ob« 
Ci  servable,  that  his  being  a  Son  is  here  ex- 
<•  pressed  indefinitely  and  without  any  limita- 
"  tion  of  time.  For  He  (the  Father)  said  to 
"  him,  Thou  art  my  Son,  not,  thou  hast 
"  been  made  so  ;  signifying,  that  he  did  not 
"  acquire  any  new  filiation,  nor  should 
4i  ever  have  an  end  of  his  existence ;  but  that 
u  he  is  always  the  same.7'*  That  Son  who  was 

*  Photii  Biblioth.  Cod.  237. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  207 

NEVER    MADE    SUCH,  who    RECEIVED    NO   NEW 

filiation,  and  who  has  been  always  the 
same,  has  surely  an  eternal  Sonship. 

But  it  is  more  than  time  that  I  should  close 
this  long  Letter.  The  few  Fathers  that  remain 
to  be  examined,  are  those  of  the  Latin  class. 
The  consideration  of  these,  together  with  some 
general  remarks  on  the  testimony  of  the  whole 
number  adduced,  will  form  the  subject  of  the 
next  Letter. 


LETTER   VI. 


Testimony  of  the  Fathers  continued. 


REVEREND  AND  DEAR  BROTHER, 


Let  us  now  turn  to  the  Latin  Fathers, 
and  see  how  far  their  language  accords  with 
that  of  their  Grecian  brethren.  If  the  East  and 
the  West,  the  Greek  and  the  Latin,  should  be 
found  to  agree  in  this  matter,  it  will  afford 
strong  presumption,  that  neither  the  mistakes 
of  superficial  and  blundering  individuals,  nor 
the  speculations  of  a  local  philosophy,  gave 
origin  to  the  passages  which  have  been  pro- 
duced. 

Tertullian  is  one  of  the  Fathers  whose 
testimony  you  seem  to  think  cannot  be  claimed 
in  behalf  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation. 
I  am  far  from  considering  this  Father  as  either 
a  consistent  theologian?  or  an  accurate  writer. 


TESTIMONY  OF,  &C.  209 

Nor  shall  I  attempt  to  defend  every  thing 
which  he  has  written  on  the  subject  under 
consideration.  Perhaps,  indeed,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  find  any  subject  which  he  has  un- 
dertaken to  discuss,  on  which  he  has  not  some- 
times expressed  him  crudely  and  erroneously, 
if  not  contradictorily.  Yet,  after  all,  I  must  be- 
lieve that  he  is  a  good  witness,  as  far  as  his 
character  goes,  in  favour  of  the  Redeemer's 
Divine  and  eternal  Sonship.  Such  passages  as 
the  following  appear  to  me  to  place  this  fact 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt. 

In  his  Apology,  he  says — "  We  affirm  that 
"  he  was  produced  from  the  Father,  and  by 
"  production  begotten;  and  that  he,  therefore, 
"  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  called  God,  from  the 
"  unity  of  his  substance,  for  God  also  is  a 
"  Spirit." — "  and  because  he  proceeded  from 
"  God,  he  is  God,  and  the  Son  of  God,  and 
f*  both  are  one — He  is  Spirit  of  Spirit,  and 
"  God  of  God,  as  light  is  kindled  of  light."^ 
The  striking  similarity  of  this  language  to  that 
of  the  Nicene  Creed,  will  not  be  overlooked. 
Again ;  in  his  work  against  Praxeas,  he  says 
concerning  the  Son  of  God, — "  He  is  the  first- 
u  begotten ,  as  being  begotten  before  all  things; 
u  and  the  only-begotten,  as  being  alone  be- 

*  Jlpnloget.  cap.  xxi.  p.  19,  20.  Edit.  Rigalt, 

s2 


210  TESTIMONY  OF 

<•  gotten  of  God  properly  in  the  womb  of  his 

"  heart."    And  again ;  "  This  is  the  true  pro- 

u  lation,  the  preserver  of  unity,  when  we  say 

"  that  the  Son  is  produced  by  the  Father,  not 

(i  separated  from  him.   For  God  produced  the 

"  Word,  as  the  root  produces  a  branch,  the 

"  fountain  a  stream,  the  sun  a  ray."*  Again; 

"  As  he  is  made  of  the  seed  of  David,  accord- 

u  ing  to  the  flesh,  he  is  man,  and  the  Son  of 

"  man;  as  he  is  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 

"  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  he  is 

"  God,  and  the  Word,  the  Son  of  GoD."f 

Again ;  "  I  will  follow  the  apostle,  so  that  if 

u  the  Father  and  Son  must  be  named  together, 

u  I  will  call  the  Father  God,  and  Jesus  Christ, 

"  Lord.     But  I  can  call  Christ  alone  God,  as 

"  the  same  apostle ;  Of  -whom  is  Christ,  who 

u  is  over  all  God  blessed  foi%  ever.    For  I  shall 

"  call  the  ray  of  the  sun,  by  itself,  the  sun : 

"  but  when  I  name  the  sun  whose  ray  it  is,  I 

"  shall  not  at  the  same  time  call  the  ray  the 

"  sun.    For  although  I  do  not  make  two  suns, 

«  I  shall  as  much  account  the  sun  and  his  ray 

**  two  things,  or  two  species  or  appearances  of 

"  one  undivided  substance,  as  God    and  his 

"  Word,  as  the  Father  and  his  Son."J  Again, 

*  Stivers.  Praxeam.  cap.  vii,  p.  503,  and  cap.  viii.  504. 
j  lb.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  516,  *  lb.  eap.  xiii,  p.  507 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  211 

he  observes/ "I  derive  the  Son  from  nothing 

"  but    THE    SUBSTANCE    OF    THE    FATHER."* 

And  again ;  "  I  every  where  hold  one  sub- 
u  stance,  and  three  coherents."!  In  an- 
other place  he  says,  "  The  Father  is  God,  and 
«  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
"  God,  and  every  one  of  them  is  God."  J 

Further ;  he  declares,  "  The  names,  Father, 
«  God  Almighty,  the  Most  High,  Lord  of 
"  hosts,  King  of  Israel,  He  who  is,  as  the 
"  scriptures  teach  us ; — these,  we  say,  are 
"  claimed  by  the  Son  likewise ;  and  that  the 
"  Son  came  in  these  characters,  and  always 
"  acted  in  them,  and  so  manifested  them  in 
"  himself  to  men.  Ml  that  the  Father  hath, 
**  said  he,  is  mine.  Why  not,  then,  his  names? 
"  Wherefore,  when  thou  readest,  Almighty 
"  God,  the  Most  High,  and  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
"  and  the  King  of  Israel,  and  He  who  is — 
*'  consider  whether  the  Son  be  not  demon- 
"  strated  thereby,  who  is,  in  his  own  right, 
"  the  Omnipotent  God,  as  he  is  the  Word 
"  of  the  Omnipotent  God.??$  And,  to  give 
but  one  extract  more — "  There  is,  therefore, 
"  one  God,  the  Father,  and  there  is  no  other 

*  Contra  Martian.  Lib.  iii.  cap.  & 

f  Jdvers.  Praxeam.  cap.  iv.  p.  398,  and  cap.  xii.  p.  403. 

*  lb.  cap.  13,  §  lb.  cap.  xviii.  p.  510. 


212  TESTIMONY  OF 

a  besides  him ;  by  which  expression  it  is  not 
' '  meant  to  exclude  the  Son,  but  another  God. 
"  But  the  Son  is  not  another  from  the  Father. 
"  Furthermore;  do  but  observe  the  drift  and 
"  tendency  of  this  kind  of  expressions,  and  you 
"  will  find,  for  the  most  part,  that  they  con- 
"  cern  only  the  makers  and  worshippers  of 
"  idols  ;  that  polytheism  may  be  rooted  out  by 
"  that  sense  of  the  Divine  unity  which,  never- 
"  theless,  includes  the  Son ;  who,  inasmuch  as 
u  he  is  undivided  and  inseparable  from  the 
"  Father,  is  to  be  understood  as  implied  in  the 
"  Father,  though  he  be  not  particularly  named. 
66  And  further,  had  he  named  the  Son  in  this 
u  case,  it  had  been  equivalent  to  separating 
U  him  from  himself.  Suppose  he  had  said, 
"  there  is  none  other  besides  me,  except  my 
"  Son,  he  would  thereby,  in  effect,  have  de- 
ff  clared  his  Son  to  be  another,  by  excepting 
"  him,  in  this  manner,  out  of  others.  Suppose 
"  the  sun  were  to  say,  I  am  the  sun;  and  there 
ff  is  not  another  besides  me,  except  my  own 
"  ray.  Would  you  not  have  marked  the  ab- 
a  surdity  of  the  observation,  as  if  the  ray 
u  were  not  to  be  reckoned  as  included  in  the 

"sun?"* 

Taking  these  extracts,  either  separately  or 

*  Advevs.  Praxeam.  cap.  xviii.  p.  510. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  213 

together,  I  am  not  not  able  to  interpret  them 
upon  any  other  principle  than  that  of  Tertul- 
lian  having  fully  believed  that  the  Sonship  of 
the  Saviour  was  Divine  and  without  begin- 
ning. It  is  evident  that  he  teaches,  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  Word  and  the  Son  are 
titles  of  the  same  import,  or  at  least  that  they 
are  to  be  applied,  as  convertible  terms,  to  the 
same  Being.  It  is  plain,  in  the  second  place, 
that  he  represents  this  glorious  Word,  or  Son, 
as  begotten ;  that  as  the  begotten  Son  he 
is  God,  and  of  one  substance  with  the  Fa- 
ther. It  is  evident,  further,  that  he  repre- 
sents him  as  the  Son  of  man,  in  virtue  of  his 
incarnation  ;  but  the  Son  of  God  in  virtue  of 
a  much  higher  generation  or  birth*  It  is  plain, 
also,  that  he  considers  the  Son  as  essentially 
and  eternally  one  with  the  Father,  and  as  no 
more  separable  from  him  than  a  part  of  the 
Divine  nature  can  be  torn  from  itself.  And, 
finally,  it  is  to  be  recollected,  that  almost  all 
these  statements  and  reasonings  are  employed 
for  the  purpose  of  opposing  the  error  called 
Sabellianism ;  the  substance  of  which  was 
taught  by  Praxeas,  against  whom  Tertullian 
wrote.  Surely  these  passages  do  not  very  well 
comport  with  the  doctrine  which  you  ascribe 
to  the  Ante-nicene  Fathers.    Nor  can  I  admit 


214  TESTIMONY  OF 

that  the  force  of  such  declarations  is  set  aside 
by  alleging  or  proving,  that  Tertullian,  in 
other  places,  expresses  himself  inconsistently 
with  the  foregoing  statements.  The  general 
scope  of  such  a  writer  is  to  be  estimated,  rather 
than  the  exact  import  of  his  theological  lan- 
guage. I  should  not  be  afraid  of  engaging  to 
produce  from  the  pages  of  this  Father,  a  hun- 
dred passages,  in  which  he  ascribes  to  the 
Word  Divine  perfections,  while,  in  the  same 
passages,  or  others,  he  represents  the  Son  as 
the  same  with  the  Word,  and  speaks  of  that 
which  is  true  of  the  one,  as  true  of  the  other. 
Novatian  also,  who  was  contemporary 
with  Cyprian,  in  his  treatise  On  the  Trinity, 
expresses  himself  in  a  manner  which,  taking 
all  the  parts  of  the  work  together,  cannot,  I 
think,  leave  any  doubt  that  he  believed  and 
meant  to  teach,  the  doctrine  of  eternal  gene- 
ration. Indeed  the  only  extract  from  this 
Father  which  you  have  given,  and  which  you 
seem  to  consider  so  decisive  the  other  way, 
really  appears  to  me  to  intimate  nothing  more 
friendly  to  your  doctrine  than  this,  that  the 
Son  was  begotten  when  the  Father  willed  ;  in 
other  words,  that  the  generation  in  question 
was  voluntary.     This,  however,  as  I  hope  to 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  215 

make  apparent  hereafter,  does  not  materially 
affect  the  question. 

Novation  expresses  himself  thus — "  As  na- 
44  ture  itself  declares  that  Christ  is  to  be  be- 
44  lieved  to  be  man,  because  he  is  of  man ;  so 
64  the  scripture  declares  that  he  is  to  be  be- 
44  lieved  to  be  God,  because  he  is  of  God ;  for 
44  if  he  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  God  who  is 
to  of  God,  so  neither  as  man,  although  of  man." 
Again,  he  says ;  "  Christ  is  not  only  proved 
44  to  be  a  man  because  he  is  the  son  of  man  ; 
*4  but  he  is  also  proved  to  be  God,  because  he 
44  is  the  Son  of  God."  Again,  he  says,  44  If 
u  Christ  was  only  man,  how  doth  he  say,  / 
44  came  forth  from  God?  Whereas  it  is  plain 
**  that  man  was  made  by  God,  and  did  not 
44  proceed  from  him.  But  though  man  did 
44  not  proceed  from  God,  the  Word  did  pro- 
44  ceed  from  him."  Still  further,  he  says — 
"  Therefore  God  proceeded  from  God ;  whilst 
44  the  Word  that  proceeded  is  God,  who 
"  proceeded  from  God."  A  few  lines  fur- 
ther on,  he  says — "  If  Christ  be  only  man, 
4i  what  is  that  which  he  means  when  he  says,  / 
44  and  my  Father  are  one  ?  For  how  can  land 
u  the  Father  be  one,  if  he  be  not  both  God  and 
u  the  Son,  who,  therefore,  may  be  called  one, 
to  as  being  of  him,  and  being  his  Son;  and 


216  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  being  born  of  him,  and  found  to  have  pro* 
"  ceeded  from  him,  by  which  he  is  God." 
Finally;  speaking  of  the  angel  who  appeared 
to  Hagar,  Sarah's  maid,  he  says — "  Where- 
"  fore,  if  the  present  passage  cannot  agree  with 
"  the  Person  of  the  Father ',  whom  it  would 
"  not  be  proper  to  call  an  angel;  nor  to  the 
u  person  of  an  angel,  whom  it  would  not  be 
"  proper  to  call  God;  still  it  may  comport 
u  with  the  person  of  Christ,  both  to  be  God, 
"  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  to  be  an  angel 
"  too,  as  sent  to  reveal  his  Father's  will."* 

What  can  be  more  clear?  If  Christ  be  God, 
and  necessarily  God,  as  Son  ;  if  he  be  God 
because  he  proceeded  from  God,  then  his  Son- 
ship  is  Divine  and  eternal.  There  is  no 
evading  this  consequence,  but  by  supposing 
that  Novatian  did  not  mean  as  he  said,  either 
through  ignorance  or  dishonesty. 

Cyprian  comes  next  in  order  among  the 
Latin  Fathers.  He  was  contemporary  with 
Origen,  and  was  probably  one  of  the  best 
theologians  and  pastors  of  the  third  century. 
You  observe  that  very  little  is  found  in  his 
works,  which  can  be  considered  as  belonging 
to  the  subject  under  consideration.  This  is 
true.     He  often,  indeed,  speaks  of  the  Son  and 

*  Novat.  Be  Trinitate  cap.  xi.  xvi.  xxiii.  xxvi. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  21? 

the  Holy  Spirit,  as  Persons  in  the  Trinity, 
and  clearly  teaches  the  Divinity  of  each ;  but 
he  never  expresses  himself  in  a  way  which 
renders  him  a  very  explicit  witness  on  the 
point  before  us.  Yet  we  find,  I  think,  some 
short  passages  which  deserve  to  be  noticed  5 
and  which,  if  I  do  not  mistake,  are  in  favour 
of  my  creed. 

The  quotation  from  his  work  Be  Idolorum 
Vanitate,  of  which  you  take  a  small  part,  a 
little  more  enlarged  runs  thus.  "  Therefore 
u  the  Word  and  Son  of  God  is  sent  as  the  ar- 
"  bitrator  and  master  of  this  indulgence,  grace 
66  and  discipline,  who  was  preached  by  all  the 
"  ancient  prophets  to  be  the  enlightener  and 
u  teacher  of  mankind.  This  is  the  Power, 
"  the  Reason,  the  Wisdom,  the  Glory  of  God. 
"  He  came  down  into  the  Virgin.  The  Holy 
u  Spirit  was  closed  with  Flesh."* 

In  the  second  Book  of  the  Testimonies 
against  the  Jews,  Cyprian f  intending  to  prove 
that  Christ  was  the  First-begotten,  the  Wis- 
dom  of  God,  by  whom  all  things  were  made, 
adduces  Proverbs  viii.  22 — 30,  in  support  of 
his  position  ;  and  then  quotes  a  passage  out  of 
the  24th  chapter  of  Ecclesiasticus,  in  which 
are  these  words — /  (  Wisdom)  came  out  of 

*  CirnuNi  Oper.p.  11.  Edit.  Amstel.  1700. 

T 


218  TESTIMONY  OF 

the  mouth  of  the  Most  High,  the  first-born 
before  every  creature.  And  in  two  places,  he 
quotes  1  John  v.  7.  excepting  that,  in  both  in- 
stances, instead  of  Word,  he  reads  Son,  and 
declares  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  ARE  ONE.* 

On  these  extracts  I  have  but  few  remarks 
to  make.  I  see  nothing  in  them  which  seems 
to  me  to  give  the  remotest  countenance,  either 
to  your  creed  on  this  subject,  or  to  the  ante- 
mundane  scheme.  On  the  contrary,  every 
thing  looks  to  me  like  a  belief  in  eternal  Son- 
ship.  Cypri an f  evidently  considered  the  Word 
and  the  Son  as  the  same.  He  evidently  ap- 
plies Proverbs  viii.  to  the  Son,  or  First-be- 
gotten of  God,  and  represents  his  goings  forth 
as  from  everlasting.  And  in  quoting  1  John 
v.  7.  I  know  not  how  to  account  for  the  fact 
that  he  is  so  careful,  in  both  cases,  to  substitute 
Son  in  the  place  of  Word,  unless  it  be  in- 
tended to  show  that  he  considered  the  former 
as  expressive  of  the  same  divine  and  eternal 
character  as  the  latter,  and  considered  the 
Son,  as  such,  as  one  of  the  Persons  of  the 
ever-blessed  Trinity. 

Lactantius  is  the  last  Father  that  I  shall 
allow  myself  to  add  to  the  present  list  of  au~ 

»  Cipriani  Oper.  p.  24        f  Ibid.  p.  79.  310. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  219 

thorities.  The  quotation  which  you  have 
made  from  him,  does  indeed  present  a  humi- 
liating view  of  the  grossness  of  his  conceptions 
concerning  the  Divine  Being  ;  but  still,  I  ap- 
prehend, it  leaves  the  main  point  under  dis- 
cussion between  us  untouched,  especially  as  all 
grant  that  Lactantius,  as  a  theological  writer, 
is  remarkably  loose  and  crude.  He  speaks, 
in  this  passage,  of  the  Word  of  God  as  pro- 
ceeding from  the  mouth  of  God  with  "  a  noise 
u  and  sound;"  but  he  does  not  say  when  it 
proceeded,  whether  from  eternity,  or  in  time. 
Nothing  decisive,  then,  can  be  inferred  from 
this  language  against  what  you  call  the  Nicene 
doctrine.  But  I  should  certainly  be  altogether 
at  a  loss  to  interpret  the  following  passage  upon 
any  other  principle  than  that  of  the  Divine 
and  eternal  Sonship  of  the  Saviour.  "  Whea 
"  we  speak  of  God  the  Father,  and  God  the 
"  Son,  we  do  not  speak  of  different  natures ; 
":  or  separate  the  one  from  the  other ;  for 
"  neither  can  there  be  a  Father  without  a  Son, 
"  nor  can  the  Son  be  divided  from  the  Father: 
"  forasmuch  as  he  cannot  be  called  a  Father 
"  without  a  Son,  nor  the  Son  be  begotten 
"  without  a  Father.  Seeing,  therefore,  a 
"  Father  makes  a  Son,  and  a  Son  makes  a 
u  Father,  they  have  both  one  mind,  and  one 


220  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  Spirit,  and  one  substance :  but  the  Father 
"  is  as  the  Fountain  and  Original,  and  the 
"  Son  as  the  stream  flowing  from  the  Foun- 
"  tain  ;  the  one  is  like  the  sun,  the  other  as  a 
"  ray  projected  from  it ;  who,  because  faithful 
"  and  dear  to  his  Father,  is  not  separated  as 
"  the  river  is  not  from  the  fountain,  nor  the 
"  ray  from  the  sun ;  because  both  the  water 
u  of  the  fountain,  is  in  the  river,  and  the  light 
••  of  the  sun  in  the  ray/'  A  little  afterwards, 
he  explains  the  unity  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son  by  the  following  similitude.  "  When  any 
"  one  hath  a  Son,  who  is  his  dearly  beloved, 
••  as  long  as  he  is  in  his  Father's  house,  and 
"  under  his  hand,  although  he  allows  him  the 
"  name  and  power  of  Lord,  yet,  by  right  it  is 
"  called  but  one  house  and  one  Lord.  So  this 
"  world  is  one  house  of  God ;  and  both  the 
"  Son  and  the  Father  who  with  one  mind 
"  dwell  therein,  are  but  one  God  ;  because 
"  the  one  is  as  two,  and  the  two  as  one."* 
Could  any  man  who  weighed  the  import  of 
language,  and  who  thought  of  what  he  was 
saying,  speak  thus,  unless  he  had  considered 
this  ineffable  relation  of  Father  and  Son  as 
Divine,  as  implying  unity  of  essence,  and  con- 
sequently as  eternal  ? 

*  Lactant.  Instit.  Lib.  iv,  car*.  29. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  221 

Lactantius,  in  another  place,  says,  "  As 
"  the  Mother  (the  Virgin  Mary)  did  in  an  un- 
"  paralleled  manner,  bring  forth  her  Maker ; 
"  so  is  the  Father  to  be  believed  ineffably 
"  to  have  begotten  one  co-eternal."* 
And  immediately  afterwards  he  speaks  thus, 
"  Therefore  also  the  Son  must  be  born  twice, 
"  that  He  might  be  without  father,  and  with- 
¥  out  mother.  For,  in  the  first  spiritual 
'6  nativity,  he  was  without  mother,  because 

«<  BEGOTTEN    BY    GOD    THE    FATHER    ALONE, 

"  without  the  office  of  a  mother  ;  but  in  the 
u  second,  carnal  nativity,  he  was  without 
•'•  father,  conceived  in  the  Virgin's  womb, 
"  without  the  office  of  Father." 

The  expression,  u  the  Father  ineffably 
u  begot  one  co-eternal,"  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  thought  that  the  Son  of  God  was 
twice  born,  once  in  a  carnal,  and  once  in  a 
spiritual  and  divine  manner,  satisfies  me 
that  Lactantius  really  held  to  a  divine  and 
eternal  generation. 

Again,  in  his  fourth  Book,  entitled  Be  Vera 
Sapientia,  he  says — "  How,  therefore,  did  the 
"  Father  beget  the  Son  ?  These  divine  works 
u  can  be  known  of  none,  declared  by  none. 

*  Instit.  Lib.  ii.  cap.  9. 

t2 


222  TESTIMONY  OF 

**  But  the  holy  scriptures  teach  that  He  is  the 
«  Son  of  God,  that  He  is  the  Word  of  God." 

When  I  find  this  eloquent  Father  expressing 
himself  as  he  does  in  this  last  extract,  concern- 
ing the  Son,  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  he 
refers  to  some  more  wonderful  and  incompre- 
hensible generation,  than  that  which  consisted 
in  a  mere  ante-mundane  coming  forth,  to  en- 
gage in  the  work  of  creation.  If  he  had  in- 
tended to  speak  of  this  "  projection  of  energy" 
only,  he  would  certainly,  I  think,  have  adopted 
very  different  language.  But  supposing  him 
to  speak  of  a  Divine  and  eternal  generation, 
the  language  which  he  employs,  appears  to 
me  the  most  apt  and  suitable  that  can  be 
imagined. 

In  reviewing  the  foregoing  extracts,  as  well 
from  the  Greek  as  the  Latin  Fathers,  there 
are  several  considerations  which  appear  to  me 
to  show  conclusively  that  I  have  not  mistaken 
their  general  import;  considerations  drawn 
from  the  extracts  themselves;  and  which, 
though  in  some  instances  derived  from  inciden- 
tal circumstances,  are  certainly  not  on  that  ac- 
count, the  less  valuable. 

(1.)  ^hz  first  is,  that  in  the  extracts  which 
have  been  given,  and  in  other  passages  of  the 
same  writers  almost  innumerable,  the  won 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  223 

Logos  or  Word,  and  Son,  are  used  inter- 
changeably for  each  other,  as  of  precisely  the 
same  application.  The  writers  quoted  speak 
as  familiarly  and  frequently  of  the  generation 
of  the  Logos,  as  of  the  generation  of  the  Son, 
Ignatius  says  the  Son  is  the  eternal  Logos, 
Justin  Martyr  speaks  again  and  again  of  the 
Logos  as  begotten,  and  the  Son  as  begotten ; 
he  speaks  of  the  Logos  or  Son ;  and  after  men- 
tioning both  these  .titles,  as  well  as  those  of 
Wisdom,  Angel,  &c.  he  says  he  (the  Son) 
bears  them,  because  he  administers  the  coun- 
sel of  the  Father,  and  was  born  of  the  will  of 
the  Father,  before  all  creatures.  Irenseus  says, 
fi  The  Son,  who  was  the  Word  of  God,  de- 
"  scended  from  the  Father;"  and  again,  "  The 
"  Word,  that  is,  the  Son  of  God,  always  ex- 
^^Isted  with  the  Father."  Clemens  Mexan- 
drinus  says,  "  the  Word  of  God  is  most  mani- 
M  festly  himself  the  true  God,  for  he  is  the 
"  Son  of  God."  Similar  language  might  be 
cited  from  a  number  of  others.  Now  these 
men  either  understood  the  import  of  the  lan- 
guage which  they  used,  or  they  did  not.  If 
they  did,  and  were  honest  men,  it  is  evident 
that  they  could  not  have  made  that  distinction 
between  Logos  and  Son  which  you  represent 
them  as  having  done.     If  they  did  not  under- 


224  TESTIMONY  OF 

stand  the  import  of  their  own  language,  then 
their  testimony  on  such  a  subject,  is  unworthy 
of  confidence  in  any  respect. 

(2.)  The  second  consideration  worthy  of 
notice,  is,  that  a  number  of  the  early  writers 
from  whom  we  have  seen  quotations,  as  well 
as  others,  lay  much  stress  on  the  fact,  that  the 
First  Person  in  the  Trinity,  had  always  been 
Father ',  and  that  the  Second  Person  had  al- 
ways been  Son.  We  have  seen,  that  the 
charge  brought  against  Dionysius  of  Alexan- 
dria, was,  that  he  had  denied  that  the  Father 
had  always  been  a  Father,  and  the  Son  always 
a  Son ;  a  charge  which  he  solemnly  denied, 
and  declared  himself  ever  to  have  been  of  a 
different  mind.  Sometime  afterwards,  Alex- 
ander of  Alexandria,  speaks  of  it  as  among 
the  singularities  of  Arius,  that  he  would 
not  own  the  Father  to  have  been  always  so  ; 
but  alleged  that  he  was  once  no  Father y  and 
that  the  Logos  was  produced  in  time.*  In 
short,  as  Dr.  Water  land  observes,!  it  seems 
to  have  been  established  as  a  kind  of  grand 
theological  maxim,  among  the  orthodox,  for  a 
number  of  years  before  the  Council  of  Nice, 

*  Socbat.  Eccles.  Hist.  lib.  i.  cap.  6. 

f  Vindication  of  Chris.? s  Divinity  against  Clarke.    Query  viii. 
p.  144. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  225 

that  the  Father  was  always  Father,  and  the 
Son  always  Son,  and  those  who  refused  to 
confess  this,  were  branded  as  hereticks.  The 
evidence  of  the  fact  which  appears  in  a  num- 
ber of  the  extracts  just  given,  I  deem  too  clear 
to  need  further  comment. 

(3.)  Some  have  supposed  and  insisted,  that 
when  the  Jlnte-Nicene  Fathers  speak,  as  it  is 
acknowledged  they  often  do,  of  the  Son  as 
being  begotten  before  all  creatures,  before  all 
ages,  &c.  and  when  they  speak  of  the  Father, 
as  the  eternal  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  as  the 
eternal  Son,  they  only  meant  to  speak  of 
an  ante-mundane  relation,  or  of  a  relation 
commencing  when  the  Logos  went  forth  to 
exert  his  power  in  the  work  of  creation.  But 
against  this  interpretation  of  such  language.  I 
have  very  strong  objections.  It  is  the  very 
language  in  which  the  sacred  Scriptures  fre- 
quently speak  of  God,  arid  of  his  plans  and 
counsels,  which  are  confessed  to  be  eternal. 
Of  this  no  one  who  is  familiar  with  the  Bible, 
will  need  to  have  examples  cited.  He  will  rea- 
dily call  to  mind  many  examples  of  Jehovah 
being  said  to  have  existed  before  the  moun- 
tains were  brought  forth — before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world,  &c. ;  and  in  which  he  is  re- 
presented as  having  chosen  his  people  in  Christ 


226  TESTIMONY  OF 

before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  they 
might  be  holy,  &c.  Do  these  expressions  de- 
signate eternity,  or  do  they  not  ?  Further ;  it 
is  plain  that  the  post-Nicene  Fathers,  whose 
opinions  on  this  subject,  are,  surely,  not  du- 
bious, have  expressed  themselves  concerning 
the  eternal  relation  of  both  the  Father  and  the 
Son  in  precisely  the  same  language.  They  say, 
that  the  Son  was  begotten  "  before  all  crea- 
"  tures,"  "  before  all  worlds,"  "  before  all 
*'  time,"  &c.  But  we  are  certainly  to  interpret 
these  phrases  as  expressive  of  a  strict  and 
/proper  eternity.  Besides,  what  is  the  differ- 
ence between  ante-mundane  and  eternal? 
How  is  eternity  ab  ante  divided  and  mea- 
sured? Is  not  the  ante-mundane  system  liable 
to  the  obvious  objection  of  making  a  division 
in  eternity,  before  time  itself  began  ? — an  ab- 
surdity which  ought  not  to  be  lightly  charged 
on  respectable  men. 

(4.)  The,  fourth  fact  which  I  shall  mention, 
as  evidently,  in  my  view,  fixing  the  sense  in 
which  the  early  Fathers  speak  of  the  generation 
of  the  Son,  is  that  which  is  drawn  from  the 
similies  by  which  they  attempt  to  illustrate  it. 
These,  you  will  recollect,  are,  the  sun  and  his 
rays;  a  fountain  and  its  stream;  one  fire 
lighted  from  another  fire,  &c.     The  question 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  227 

is  not  now  whether  these  similies  are  happy, 
or  unhappy,  adequate,  or  inadequate :  but 
what  was  their  evident  scope  and  design? 
Now  they  all  appear  to  me  to  be  expressive 
of  something  strictly  co-eval  with  that  from 
which  it  flows.  Nay,  they  seem  to  be  selected 
with  the  most  studious  care  to  convey  this 
precise  idea,  and  indeed  to  be  in  a  great  mea- 
sure, if  not  entirely  destitute  of  meaning  upon 
any  other  principle  of  interpretation.  Of 
course,  however  gross  or  inadequate  their 
ideas  of  the  generation  of  the  Son ;  yet  if  they 
did  think  and  speak  of  it  as  eternal,  that  is,  as 
strictly  co-eval  with  the  existence  of  the  eter- 
nal Father,  it  follows,  inevitably,  that  they 
maintained  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  genera- 
tion of  the  Son. 

(5.)  The  last  consideration  which  I  shall 
now  stay  to  urge  as  proof  that  the  early  Fa- 
thers believed  and  taught  the  doctrine  which  I 
maintain}  is,  that  they  uniformly  represent  the 
Son  as  included  in  the  one  Godhead  with  the 
Father.  That  is,  while  they  contend  that 
there  is  only  one  God,  they  uniformly  repre- 
sent the  Son  as  possessing  a  Divine  nature 
equally  with  the  Father,  and  as  ever  included 
in  that  Godhead,  which  comprehends,  if  I  may 
so  express  it,  the   Father  also.     But  if  they 


228  TESTIMONY  QF 

constantly  believed  the  Son,  as  Son,  to  be  one 
substance  with  the  Father ;  to  be  always  in- 
cluded in  the  one  Godhead ;  and  at  the  same 
time,  to  be  a  distinct  Person  from  the  Father ; 
— that  is  of  the  same  substance,  but  not  the 
same  Person  with  the  Father ;  distinguished, 
yet  inseparable  from  him ;  then  it  appears  to 
me  to  follow,  of  course,  that  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  Sonship  was  an  article  of  their  creed. 
Yet  it  is  certain  that  the  great  body  of  the 
early  Fathers  united  in  giving  this  representa- 
tion of  the  Tri-une  God.  I  might  appeal  to 
all  the  most  conspicuous  names  that  have  been 
mentioned,  in  proof  of  the  fact. 

In  connection  with  this  fact,  it  ought  to  be 
recollected  too,  for  what  purpose  the  great 
body  of  these  writers  so  zealously  contended, 
as  they  did,  for  an  essential  unity  of  sub- 
stance, between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and 
at  the  same  time  an  essential  and  eternal  dis- 
tinction between  them.  To  this  they  were 
led  by  the  two  constant  objections  made  by  the 
hereticks,  against  the  Orthodox  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  The  Praxeans,  Noetians,  and  Sa- 
bellians  alleged  that  it  implied  a  division  of 
the  Father's  substance.  While  the  Arians, 
and  all  their  predecessors,  who,  in  substance, 
agreed  with  them,  charged  the  Orthodox  with 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  229 

Tritheis?n.  It  does  appear  to  me  that  the 
manner  in  which  the  Fathers  answered  these 
hereticks,  from  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr,  to 
the  Council  of  Nice; — the  manner  in  which 
they  spoke  of  the  eternal  unity  and  the  eter- 
nal distinction,  subsisting  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  must  evince  to  every  impartial 
reader,  that  they  did  not,  and  could  not  hold 
the  doctrine  concerning  the  Sonship  of  the 
Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  which  you 
ascribe  to  them.  I  have  not  room  to  enter  on 
the  illustration  of  this  point  in  detail.  It  is 
well  treated  in  WaterlancPs  Vindication 
against  Clarke  ;  and  in  Bishop  BuWs  Defen- 
sio  Fidei  Nicsenae,  and  also  in  his  Judicium 
Ecclesix  Catholicse. 

One  method,  and  a  very  decisive  one,  of  as- 
certaining what  was  held  and  preached  as 
truth,  in  a  given  period  of  the  Church,  is  to 
ascertain,  if  we  can,  what  was  condemned, 
during  that  period,  as  heresy.  Now,  we  know, 
that  Paul  of  Samosata,  a  heretick,  who  was 
contemporary  with  Dionysius  of  Alexandria, 
and  his  namesake  of  Borne,  among  other  errors 
concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  denied  his 
eternal  generation  and  Sonship; — in  other 
words,  he  asserted,  that  he  was  not  the  Son  of 
the  Father  by  nature  and  from  eternity;  but  only 

U 


230  TESTIMONY  OF 

Son  by  adoption,  and  by  his  birth  of  the  Vir- 
gin. Two,  if  not  three  Councils  were  convened, 
a  little  after  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
to  deliberate  and  decide  on  the  heresy  of  this 
man.  The  last,  a  large  and  respectable  one, 
assembled  A.  D.  269,  by  which  Paul  was  con- 
demned, deposed  from  the  ministry,  and  ex- 
communicated from  the  church.  That  the 
above  stated  opinion  was  one  on  account  of 
which  he  was  pronounced  heretical,  is  evident 
from  a  comparison  of  the  accounts  given  of 
him  and  his  heresy  by  Eusebius,  Epiphanius, 
Philastrius,  Athanasius,  Socrates,  and  others; 
and  especially  from  the  original  documents  re- 
lating to  the  case,  preserved  by  Eusebius,  and 
in  the  Bibliotheca  Patrum  Pa?*isiens.  Tom. 
xi.  And  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  add,  that  the 
Magdeburgh  Centuriators,  and  Dr.  Mosheim, 
in  his  work  De  Rebus  Christianorum  ante 
Constantinurn  Magnum,  concur  in  this  state- 
ment. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  large  and  respecta- 
ble Synod,  pronouncing  the  denial  of  Christ's 
Divine  and  eternal  Sonship  a  heresy.  Surely 
nothing  can  be  more  unlike  the  opinion  which 
you  have  represented  as  generally  prevalent 
among  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers. 

Another  source  of  proof,  as  to  the  opinions 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  231 

of  the  Jlnte-Nicene  Fathers  on  this  subject, 
appears  to  me  worthy  of  particular  notice. 
The  Jlrians,  in  the  earlier  stages  of  their  pro- 
gress, found  it  necessary,  especially  in  those 
parts  of  the  Church  in  which  their  numbers 
were  very  small,  to  conceal  their  sentiments, 
and  for  this  purpose  to  adopt  modes  of  expres- 
sion calculated  to  persuade  the  people  that 
they  adhered  to  the  old  creeds,  which  had 
been  received  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles. 
Accordingly  they  sent,  from  time  to  time,  to 
the  Emperors  and  other  publick  authorities, 
confessions  of  faith,  which  they  alleged  were 
precisely  in  the  old  language,  which  had  been 
handed  down  in  ecclesiastical  formularies  from 
the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  universally  re- 
ceived ;  and  which  they  declared  their  entire 
readiness  to  subscribe.  Athanasius  has  pre- 
served a  number  of  these  Arian  confessions, 
which,  while  they  are  monuments  of  Unitarian 
duplicity  and  falsehood,  are,  at  the  same  time, 
incontrovertible  evidence  of  the  sentiments  and 
language  universally  current  among  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Christians,  on  the  subject  of  this  cor- 
respondence. 

Take  the  following  specimen  of  these  Con- 
fessions. One  contains  these  words — "  And 
"  in  one  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  who  ex- 


232  TESTIMONY  OF 

"  isted  before  all  ages,  and  was  with  the  Fa- 
"  ther  that  begat  him,  by  whom  all  things 
"  were  made."  Another  has  the  following 
clause — "  And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  his 
"  only-begotten  Son,  God,  by  whom  are  all 
"  things,  God,  begotten  of  his  Father  before 
"  ages."  A  third  reads  thus — "  And  in  one 
"  only-begotten  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
"  by  whom  are  all  things,  begotten,  perfect 
"  God  of  the  Father  before  ages."  A  fourth 
thus — "  And  in  his  only  begotten  Son,  our 
"  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  begotten  God  of  the  Fa- 
"  ther  before  all  ages,  by  whom  all  things  were 
"  made."  Each  of  these  confessions  was  pre 
faced  by  declarations  or  acknowledgments  on 
the  part  of  the  Arians,  that  they  had,  in  draw- 
ing them  up,  carefully  adhered  to  the  rule  of 
faith  received  from  the  beginning.  Thus,  as 
a  preface  to  one,  they  say — "We  have  not 
f<  received  any  other  faith  than  that  which 
"  was  delivered  from  the  beginning."  As  in- 
troductory to  another,  they  declare,  "  We  be- 
"  lieve,  agreeably  to  evangelical  and  apostoli- 
"  cal  tradition." 

Here,  then,  we  have  evidence  of  the  most 
unexceptionable  kind,  the  confessions  of  adver- 
saries, that  the  uniform  and  universal  faith  of 
the  Ante-Nicene  Church  distinctly  recognized 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  233 

that  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  was  the 
Son  of  the  Father,  begotten  before  all  ages, 
that  is,  from  eternity ;  for,  as  I  observed  be- 
fore, the  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  whom  all  agree 
to  have  been  believers  in  the  doctrine  of  eter- 
nal generation,  use  the  very  same  language  to 
express  that  which  had  no  beginning ; — that 
which  was  before  all  time. 

Will  any  man,  after  reading  testimony  of 
this  kind,  be  able  to  persuade  himself,  that  the 
Nicene  Creed  did  not  accord  with  the  Ante- 
Nicene  opinion,  but  was  an  innovation  ?  With 
such  evidence  before  me,  it  is  impossible  for 
me  thus  to  believe. 

But,  after  all,  the  true  sentiments  of  the 
whole  Church  on  this  subject,  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  «M'ce,may  bebestlearned  from  the  decision 
of  the  numerous,  aged,  and  venerable  men,  both 
from  the  East  and  West,  who  sat  in  that  Coun- 
cil, and  who,  with  a  most  remarkable  degree 
of  unanimity,  voted  its  final  judgment  on  the 
doctrine  under  consideration.  Had  that  Coun- 
cil been  composed  of  young  men,  who  knew 
nothing  of  the  writings  or  feelings  of  those 
pious  divines  who  had  governed  the  church 
toward  the  close  of  the  preceding  century ;  or 
had  the  Emperor  Constantine  dictated  its  de- 
cision in  conformity  with  his  own  prejudices 
u2 


234  TESTIMONY  OF 

or  caprice ;  or  were  there  the  smallest  evidence 
of  their  being  impelled  by  a  spirit  of  opposition 
to  Arins,  to  maintain  something  before  un- 
known ; — were  any  one  of  these  suppositions 
supported  by  even  tolerable  evidence,  your 
mode  of  accounting  for  the  decision  of  the 
Council  might  be  admitted.  But  I  think,  my 
dear  Sir,  you  have  entirely  failed  of  solving 
the  difficulty  which,  on  your  principles,  that 
decision  presents.  Let  me  beg  you  to  pause  a 
moment,  and  re-consider  the  circumstances  of 
the  case. 

The  JYicene  Council  was  composed  of  a 
large  number  of  bishops,  and  other  ecclesias- 
tical men,  to  the  amount  of  six  or  seven  hun- 
dred at  least,  and  probably  many  more ;  col- 
lected from  all  parts  of  the  christian  world. 
A  large  number  of  them  were  as  venerable  for 
years,  influence,  and  authority,  as  any  in  the 
ehurch.     If  there  were  honest,  independent, 
consistent  divines,  then  on  earth,  they  were  to 
be  found,  it  may  be  presumed,  among  those 
who  were  there  convened.  And,  although  the 
ecclesiasticks  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood 
of  ^Alexandria,  might  have  been  agitated  an< 
blinded  by  personal  feelings  ;  yet  where  hav< 
we  a  particle  of  evidence  that  such  feelini 
extended  to  the  remotest   extremes   of  th< 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  235 

church  ?  It  is  known,  too,  that  the  Emperor 
left  the  members  of  the  Council  entirely  un- 
biassed as  to  his  influence  in  relation  to  the 
doctrine  then  in  controversy.  For,  whatever 
he  might  have  said  and  done  after  their  judg- 
ment was  announced,  before  it  was  formed,  he 
entreated  the  principal  disputants  to  lay  aside 
all  strife  and  be  reconciled,  and  severely  re- 
primanded both  of  them  for  disturbing  the 
church  with  their  disputes  "  concerning  things 
"  small,  and  to  the  last  degree  frivolous." 
And,  accordingly,  when  the  Council  convened, 
and  the  members  of  opposite  parties  put  into 
the  hands  of  the  Emperor  papers  containing 
mutual  complaints  and  recriminations;  he  tore 
them  in  pieces,  and  threw  them  into  the  fire, 
declaring  that  he  had  read,  and  would  read 
none  of  them  ;  earnestly  exhorting  both  par- 
ties to  exercise  a  spirit  of  forbearance  and 
peace ;  and  expressing  an  entire  willingness  to 
acquiesce  in  whatever  decision  the  Council 
might  think  proper  to  adopt. 

In  conformity  with  this  recommendation,  the 
Council  sat  a  considerable  time;  deliberated 
cautiously  and  carefully;  canvassed  every  part 
of  the  creed  which  they  drew  up  with  the 
most  eager  attention  and  vigilance ;  and,  at 
length  adopted  it  by  nearly  a  unanimous  vote, 


236  TESTIMONY  OF 

It  was  solemnly  subscribed  by  every  member 
present,  excepting  four,  one  of  whom  was 
iflrius  himself.  Does  this  look  like  a  set  of 
men  impelled  by  heated  feeling,  rather  than 
a  sacred  regard  to  scriptural  truth  ?  Besides  $ 
what  reason  can  be  given  for  the  remarkably 
pointed  and  decisive  manner  in  which  the 
Nicene  Creed  maintains  the  eternal  Sonship 
of  the  Saviour,  if  it  had  not  been  firmly  be- 
lieved and  settled  as  a  doctrine  of  the  church? 
If  they  had  believed,  with  you,  in  a  Logos, 
co-essential  and  co-eternal  with  the  Father, 
and  a  Son,  deriving  his  title  of  Son  from  his 
incarnation  and  resurrection,  could  they  not, 
in  your  opinion,  just  as  well  have  defended 
themselves  against  the  Arians,  by  exhibiting 
that  creed,  as  by  taking  the  ground  which  they 
did  ?  My  own  opinion,  indeed,  is,  that  they 
could  not.  But  you,  doubtless,  think  other- 
wise ;  nay,  you  certainly  suppose,  that  upon 
such  grounds  they  could  have  defended 
themselves  much  better ;  and  you  are  there- 
fore bound,  upon  that  principle,  to  account 
for  the  course  which  they  took. — I  have  never 
seen  any  solid  evidence ;  nay,  I  have  never 
seen  evidence  which  I  thought  plausible,  that 
the  Nicene  Creed  was  an  innovation  on  the 
preceding  creed  of  the  church.    If  it  was  not 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  237 

then  my  point  is  gained:  the  Nicene  Fathers 
did  not  innovate  on  that  creed  which  they 
found  established.  But,  if  it  was  an  innova- 
tion, then  we  have  the  strange  spectacle  of, 
probably,  more  than  one  thousand  ecelesias- 
ticks,  coming  from  every  part  of  the  christian 
world,  and  some  of  them  among  the  most  piousA 
honest,  and  independent  men  then  living, 
nearly  unanimously  consenting  to  abandon 
their  old  ground,  and  to  take  a  novel  one,  out 
of  pure  spite  against  Arius  and  his  followers ; 
and  that  at  the  very  time,  when  the  plea,  that 
they  were  contending  for  the  "  old  and  hal- 
u  lowed  doctrine  of  the  church"  was  precisely 
that  which  they  most  zealously  urged. 

But  I  have  another  consideration  to  urge, 
which  appears  to  me  to  carry  with  it  very 
strong  presumption  against  the  correctness  of 
your  statement,  and  in  favour  of  mine.  I  refer 
to  the  indubitable  fact,  that  the  Nicene  Fa- 
thers, in  defending  the  doctrine  of  their  Creed 
against  the  Arians,  constantly  appeal  to  the 
authority  ef  the  Fathers  who  flourished  and 
wrote  before  their  time,  and  declare  that  they 
coincided  with  them  in  opinion  concerning  the 
Sonship  of  the  Saviour.  Jlthanasiiis,  after 
having  cited  in  defence  of  the  Nicene  Creed, 
the  testimonies  of  some  distinguished  writers 


238  TESTIMONY  OF 

who  had  preceded  him,  thus  addresses  the 
Arians — "  Behold,  we  show  you  that  our  opi- 
"  nion  has  been  handed  down  from  Fa- 
"  thers  to  Fathers  ;  but  you,  novel  Jews, 
"  and  disciples  of  Caiaphas,  what  Fathers  can 
"  you  produce  for  your  forms?  You  cannot 
u  name  to  us  one  wise  or  prudent  man.  All 
"  abhor  you  excepting  the  Devil.  He  only 
u  was  the  author  of  such  an  apostacy."*  This 
testimony  is  in  itself  a  host.  Athanasius  had, 
no  doubt,  seen  and  read  the  writings  of  many 
Fathers  who  lived  before  the  Council  of  Nicey 
which  are  now  lost.  But  speaking  of  these,  as 
well  as  of  those  which  have  come  down  to  us, 
he  declares  that  he  was  not  able  to  name  one 
Father  who  was  not  on  the  side  of  the  Nicene 
Creed.  Would  any  man  in  his  senses  (to  say 
nothing  of  honesty)  have  dared  to  write  thus, 
if  he  had  not  known  the  fact  to  be  as  he  so 
confidently  stated? 

The  same  thing  is  asserted  by  Alexander, 
Bishop  of  Alexandria,  in  a  letter  to  his  name- 
sake, Bishop  of  Constantinople.  He  declares, 
that  the  Arians  refused  to  appeal  to  the  Fa- 
thers who  had  gone  before  them ;  that  they 
rejected  their  testimony ;  and  maintained  that 

*  Athanasii  Oper.  Tom.  i.  p.  277; 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  239 

the  opinions  which  they  (the  Arians)  held 
were  communicated  to  them  by  immediate  in- 
spiration. 

The  same  general  fact  was  evinced  a  few 
years  afterwards,  in  the  same  century,  during 
the  reign  of  Theodosius  the  great.  The  em- 
peror, being  greatly  at  a  loss  for  some  means 
of  putting  an  end  to  the  ferment  which  the 
Arian  controversy  had  so  long  kept  up,  con- 
sulted with  some  of  the  leading  clergy  on  the 
subject.  While  this  consultation  was  going  on, 
Sisinnius,  an  orthodox  man,  of  great  piety, 
learning  and  prudence,  but  in  an  humble  sta- 
tion ;  advised,  that  in  order  to  stop  the  mouths 
of  the  Arians,  an  appeal  should  be  made  to  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers  from  the  time  of  the 
Apostles  down  to  their  day ;  and  the  Arians 
be  asked,  whether  they  were  willing  to  abide 
the  issue  of  such  an  appeal?  Theodosius 
adopted  the  plan  proposed,  and  offered  to 
place  the  decision  of  the  controversy  on  this 
footing.  But  the  Arians,  with  one  voice,  re- 
fused to  abide  by  the  judgment  of  the  Fathers. 
—These  facts  are  minutely  related  by  Socrates, 
the  historian,  and  the  whole  story  is  amply 
confirmed  by  his  contemporary,  Sozomen.* 

*  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccks.  Lib.  v.  cap.  10.  Sozomkx.  Hist.  Eccles. 
Lib.  vii.  cap.  12. 


240  TESTIMONY  OF 

The  former  of  these  writers  also  tells  us, 
that,  after  the  Nicene  Creed  was  drawn  up, 
and  about  to  be  subscribed,  the  emperor  Con- 
stantine  asked  JLcesius,  a  Novatian  Bishop 
who  was  present  in  the  Council,  whether  he 
was  willing  to  subscribe  the  Creed  ?  on  which. 
Acesius  replied — "  The  Synod,  O  King,  has 
"  defined  nothing  new.  I  have  read  this 
"  definition  of  faith,  and  find  it  to  be  the  an- 

w  CIENT  TRADITION,  EVEN  FROM  THE  BE- 
U>  GINNING,  FROM  THE  VERY  TIMES  OF  THE 
"  APOSTLES." 

Another  method  of  ascertaining  what  the 
Ante-Nicene  christians  believed,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  this  correspondence,  is  to  trace  the 
charges  brought  against  their  doctrine  by  the 
opposers  and  scoffers  among  the  Pagans  of  that 
day.  Among  these  Lucian  held  a  conspicuous 
place.  He  flourished  about  170  years  after 
Christ.  From  the  talents  and  learning  which 
he  manifests,  he  could  Jot  fail  of  knowing  what 
the  christians  of  his  day  believed ;  more  espe- 
cially, as  Jerome  tells  us,  in  his  Catalogue  of 
Ecclesiastical  Writers,  that  he  was  once  him- 
self a  professing  christian,  but  afterwards  be- 
came an  apostate.  Among  other  reproaches 
which  he  throws  out  against  the  christians  and 
their  faith,  the  following  passage  occurs  in  his 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  241 

Philopatris.  "  God,  reigning  on  high,  great, 
"  eternal,  heavenly,  the  Son  of  the  Father, 
"  the  Spirit  proceeding  from  the  Father,  One 
"  of  Three,  and  Three  of  One,— I  know  not 
**  what  you  say— One  that  is  Three,  and 
u  Three  that  are  One/' 

Here  is  not  only  clear  evidence,  that  Lucian 
considered  the  christians  in  his  day  as  main- 
taining the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity ; 
but  it  seems  to  be  equally  evident,  that  he  con- 
sidered the  title  Son,  or  Son  of  the  Father 
as  the  appropriate  title  of  the  Second  Person 
of  the  Trinity,  as  such,  and  expressive  of  his 
Divine  and  eternal  nature,  just  as  much  as 
the  "  Spirit  proceeding  from  the  Father"  was 
expressive  of  the  Divine  nature  of  the  Third 
Person, 

But  you  still  insist,  as  a  very  serious  deduc- 
tion from  the  enlightened  orthodoxy  of  the 
Nicene  Fathers,  that,  although  they  were  much 
nearer  the  truth  than  the  Avians ;  yet  that 
they  differed  from  those  here  ticks  much  less 
than  they  themselves  imagined,  or  than  many 
modern  advocates  of  the  Nicene  Creed  are 
ready  to  suppose.  I  do  not  contend,  my  dear 
Sir,  that  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Nice  se- 
lected, in  all  cases,  the  most  appropriate  and 
happy  language  to  express  their  opinions.    It 

X 


242  TESTIMONY  OF 

would  have  been  strange  indeed,  if,  in  speaking 
on  a  subject  so  sublime  and  mysterious,  they 
had  in  no  instance  employed  terms  liable  to 
be  misinterpreted,  and  even  positively  un- 
happy. I  am  not  able  to  name  a  single  writer 
who,  in  treating  of  a  subject  of  much  delicacy 
or  difficulty,  has  wholly  avoided  this  infelicity. 
Still,  I  think  such  expressions  ought  never  to 
be  charged  against  any  one,  when  his  language, 
taken  altogether,  and  comparing  the  several 
parts  of  his  discussion  or  illustration,  exhibits, 
on  the  whole,  a  distinct  and  correct  sense.  To 
give  an  example  of  my  meaning — When,  in 
the  80th  page  of  your  Letters,  you  speak  of 
the  Divine  essence  as  "  the  result  of  a  union 
of  certain  qualities,  attributes,  or  predicates," 
I  take  for  granted  that,  if  called  to  reconsider 
the  word  result,  you  would  not  attempt  to  de- 
fend it,  as  either  metaphysically  or  theologi- 
cally accurate  ;  nay,  you  would  instantly  per- 
ceive that  it  must  be  given  up,  as  equally  ex- 
ceptionable with  derivation,  emanation,  or 
any  of  those  words  against  which  you  have  so 
zealously  protested.  Yet,  I  take  for  granted, 
that,  as  to  the  point  intended  to  be  expressed 
by  that  word,  no  candid  reader  would  think  of 
either  charging  you  with  heterodoxy,  or  say- 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  243 

ing  that  you  had  not,  on  the  whole,  with  great 
clearness,  expressed  your  opinions. 

On  the  same  principle  we  ought,  in  my 
opinion,  to  interpret  the  language  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice.  That  the  members  of  that  Council, 
in  their  Synodical  capacity,  as  well  as  in  their 
writings  as  individuals,  did  really  mean,  and 
unceasingly  strive,  to  convey  the  idea,  that 
the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  whom  they 
called  the  Son,  and  whom  they  represent  as 
begotten  of  the  Father ;  was,  nevertheless,  in 
their  view,  strictly  and  eternally  divine ;  a 

CO-EQUAL,    CO-ESSENTIAL,    and    CO-ETERNAL 

Person  with  the  Father  ;  is  what,  I  presume, 
none  will  hesitate  to  admit.  If  they  have  suc- 
ceeded in  making  this  perfectly  plain,  I  think 
that  the  remotest  alliance  in  sentiment  with 
the  Arians,  is  one  of  the  last  things  with  which 
they  ought  to  be  charged. 

If  the  foregoing  statements  be  correct,  then" 
the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  Sonship  of  Christ, 
is  a  doctrine  in  which  the  great  body  of  the 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  harmoniously  and  deci- 
sively concurred  ;  which  the  whole  assembled 
Church,  in  the  fourth  century,  solemnly  pro- 
fessed to  believe,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
acknowledged  Arians ;  which  was  unani- 
mously received  by  all  the  orthodox  in  the 


244  TESTIMONY  OF 

christian  world,  from  that  time  till  near  the 
close  of  the  seventeenth  century  ;  and  which 
has  been  since  opposed  by  none  but  Unitarians, 
and  a  very  small  section,  compared  with  the 
whole  body,  of  Trinitarian  believers.  Indeed 
you  yourself,  I  presume,  will  not  hesitate  to 
acknowledge,  that,  from  the  Council  of  Nice 
to  the  first  publication  of  Roell,  in  1689,  for 
thirteen  hundred  years,  among  all  the  Wit- 
nesses of  the  truth  in  the  middle  ages,  your 
doctrine  had  not  probably  a  single  Trinitarian 
advocate  on  earth.  And  even  if  this  latter  be 
so,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Ante-Nicene  period, 
ought  not  a  prudent,  sober  minded  christian — 
I  appeal  to  your  judgment — to  be  cautious  and 
slow  in  abandoning  a  doctrine  which  held,  for 
so  long  a  time,  an  undisputed  and  elevated 
place,  among  the  best  friends  of  the  Redeemer? 
For  my  part,  if  the  evidence  from  scripture 
were  much  more  dubious  than  I  think  it  is,  I 
should  certainly  feel  extremely  reluctant  to 
discard  a  doctrine,  which  has  so  long  and  so 
generally  been  considered  as  making  a  part  of 
the  form  of  sound  words  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,  and  which  has  been  incorporated  with 
all  the  creeds  and  confessions  of  the  orthodox, 
so  far  as  I  can  now  call  to  mind,  at  least  from 
the  Council  of  Nice  to  the  present  day. 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  245 

Nor  will  it  be  forgotten,  that  the  doctrine 
thus  maintained  by  all  the  early  Fathers,  and 
by  all  the  Witnesses  for  the  truth,  from  the 
time  of  the  apostles,  at  this  hour  makes  a  part, 
not  merely  of  the  articles  of  faith  adopted,  by 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the  United 
States,  and  in  Scotland;  but  also  of  those  pro- 
fessed by  the  Churches  of  England,  Holland, 
Finance,  Germany,  and  I  believe,  by  all  the 
Churches  of  Protestant  Christendom.  That 
this  will  have  some  weight  with  all  reflecting 
persons,  I  cannot  for  a  moment  doubt. 

Here  I  take  leave  of  the  Fathers.     Not,  I 


w 


confess,  u  sick  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart/ 
even  of  what  they  say  on  the  subject  of  the 
Godhead,  and  the  Person  of  the  Redeemer. 
The  more  I  read  them,  the  more  I  respect 
them  for  their  piety,  their  talents,  and  their 
learning.  From  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr, 
indeed,  to  the  time  of  Augustine,  every  branch 
of  theological  doctrine  was  at  a  low  ebb ;  and 
scarcely  a  single  article  of  it  can  be  considered 
as  taught  with  uniform  and  consistent  accuracy. 
If  they  sometimes  talked  crudely,  and  even  er- 
roneously, on  the  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  it  is 
no  more  than  they  often  did  on  almost  every 
doctrine  that  I  can  now  call  to  mind.  Yet, 
after  all  I  find  in  them  so  rich  a  fund  of  instruc- 
x2 


246  TESTIMONY  OF 

tion,  even  on  those  subjects  on  which  they  ex- 
press themselves  weakly  and  erroneously,  that 
I  cannot  help  lamenting,  that  I  did  not  begin 
to  study  them  earlier  in  life ;  and  that  from 
the  time  I  began  to  look  through  their  volumes, 
I  have  not  had  enough  either  of  health  or  of 
leisure  to  admit  of  obtaining  a  profound  ac- 
quaintance with  them. 

I  feel  constrained,  however,  to  take  this  op- 
portunity of  saying,  (in  which  I  am  sure  you 
will  concur  with  me)  that  if  I  were  to  se- 
lect any  doctrines,  out  of  the  whole  christian 
system,  in  support  of  which  the  great  body  of 
the  Fathers,  for  the  first  three  hundred  years, 
taking  them  together,  speak  more  clearly, 
more  unequivocally,  with  more  studied  variety 
and  decision  of  language ; — in  short,  concern- 
ing which  there  is  less  doubt  as  to  what  they 
really  received,  and  meant  to  teach,  than  any 
others,  I  should,  without  hesitation,  select  the 
doctrines  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity.  I  will' 
venture  to  say,  that  whoever  examines  the 
early  Fathers  impartially,  will  find,  amidst 
their  multifarious,  and  often  very  crude  lucu- 
brations, more  precision,  more  decisively  ac- 
curate discussion,  more  pointed  conformity 
with  orthodoxy,  more  harmonious  agreement, 


THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  247 

more  constant  care  to  maintain  fundamental 
and  exact  truth — in  reference  to  these  doc- 
trines, than  any  others  that  can  be  named.  In 
one  word,  if  I  were  left  at  liberty  to  select  any 
doctrines,  which  I  would  be  more  willing,  than 
with  respect  to  any  others,  to  prove,  under 
the  heaviest  penalties,  that  the  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers,  believed  and  taught,  I  should  cer- 
tainly fix,  at  once,  on  those  which  I  have  just 
mentioned. 

I  know  there  is  no  need  of  my  asking  you 
to  pardon  me  for  this  digression.  But  I  must 
hasten  to  another  department  of  my  under- 
taking. 


LETTER   VII. 


Objections  answered. 


RE7EREND  AND  DEAR  BROTHER, 

I  propose  to  devote  this  Letter  to 
the  consideration  of  the  principal  objections 
which  you  make  to  the  doctrine  maintained  in 
the  foregoing  pages.  I  say  the  principal 
ones ;  for  I  am  obliged,  on  this  as  well  as  on 
other  branches  of  the  general  subject,  to  make 
a  selection  of  topicks,  out  of  the  great  number 
which  invite  attention.  Some  of  the  objec- 
tions about  to  be  noticed,  have  been  hinted  at 
in  the  preceding  letters ;  but  they  are  entitled 
to  more  particular  and  careful  examination. 

I.  The  first  and  most  serious  of  all  your  ob- 
jections is,  that  you  cannot  understand  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  generation ;  nay,  that  it 
contradicts  all  your  ideas  of  the  Divine  na- 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED*  249 

ture ;  and  that,  therefore,  if  you  were  to  find 
passages  of  scripture  which  seemed  to  assert 
that  the  Son  of  God  was  eternally  begotten, 
you  could  not  interpret  such  passages  literally, 
but  must  suppose  that  they  meant  something 
different  from  a  true  and  proper  generation. 
You  acknowledge  that  you  have  no  right  to 
demand  that  the  nature  of  this  generation  it- 
self be  explained  ;  but  you  insist  that  you  have 
a  right  to  demand  that  the  language  used  to 
express  it  be  altogether  intelligible.  You  un- 
dertake, therefore,  to  pronounce,  that  when 
the  term  "  generation"  is  applied  at  all  to  a 
Person  of  the  Godhead,  it  appears  to  you 
either  an  "  unmeaning  term,"  or  "  flatly  con- 
tradictory to  every  notion  of  Deity  that  you 
can  form  f?  and  that  you  are,  of  course,  con- 
strained to  reject  it  as  unintelligible.  This  is 
a  radical  objection,  to  which  you  frequently 
recur,  and  which  no  explanation  seems  to  be 
capable  of  diminishing. 

I  acknowledge,  my  dear  Sir,  I  was  not  pre- 
pared to  expect  this  objection  from  an  ortho- 
dox Brother.  Had  I  been  called,  indeed,  to 
maintain  my  creed  against  one  who  excluded 
from  his  theological  system  all  mysteries,  I 
should  have  anticipated  meeting  him  on  this 
ground;  and  have  seen  him,  without  surprise, 


250  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED, 

advancing  to  occupy  it.  But  in  a  discussion 
with  one  who  embraces  your  general  creed,  I 
must  say,  I  had  no  expectation  of  being  called 
to  answer  the  objection  which  has  been  just 
stated,  especially  under  the  aspect  in  which 
you  have  placed  it. 

You  profess  to  believe  many  things,  which 
you  can  no  more  understand,  than  the  doctrine 
for  which  I  plead.  You  acknowledge,  without 
difficulty,  that  there  are  three  Persons  in  one 
God,  "  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power 
and  glory."  And  you  profess  to  believe  this, 
not  because  you  have  any  distinct  notions  of 
the  fact  which  these  terms  express,  but  simply 
because  you  consider  that  fact  as  taught  in 
scripture.  You  also  admit,  no  doubt,  the  Di- 
vine Omnipresence ;  that  is,  you  admit,  that 
not  merely  a  part,  but  the  whole  of  God  is 
present  in  heaven ;  and  at  the  same  time,  not 
merely  a  part,  but  the  whole  of  God  is  present 
on  earth,  and  in  every  portion  of  the  universe. 
But  is  this  intelligible  to  creatures  of  our  small 
capacity?  Nay,  is  it  wholly  free  from  the 
charge  of  apparent  contradiction  and  impos- 
sibility? Yet  no  one  who  hopes  to  escape  the 
charge  of  atheism,  thinks  for  a  moment  of  de- 
nying it.  I  acknowledge  my  inability  to  per- 
ceive, why  one  who  receives  these  doctrines 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  251 

without  difficulty,  should  be  stumbled  at  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  Sonship,  as  too  mysterious 
to  be  admitted. 

But,  you  say,  (p.  88.)  "  What  is  unintelli- 
u  gible,  or  surpasses  our  comprehension,  be- 
"  longs  to  things,  and  not  to  words.  What 
ft  we  express  respecting  things,  must  of  course 
u  be  intelligible;  for  language  is  merely  the  ve- 
u  hide  by  which  our  thoughts  are  conveyed  to 
u  others."  And  again — "  It  is  very  easy  to 
i6  draw  the  line  of  distinction  between  mys- 
"  tery  which  is  connected  with  things,  or 
u  phenomena,  and  mystery  which  belongs  only 
"  to  language.  The  latter,  I  take  it,  always 
"  proceeds  either  from  want  of  skill,  or  crafty 
u  design,  or  an  intention  to  speak  enigmas.77 
This  is  setting  up  a  distinction,  my  dear  sir, 
which  I  am  inclined  to  think  more  mature  con- 
sideration will  constrain  you  to  abandon  as 
untenable,  or,  at  any  rate,  to  regard  as  of  no 
value.  If  I  understand  the  spirit  of  the  argu- 
ment founded  on  this  distinction,  it  is  pre- 
cisely that  which  our  Unitarian  neighbours 
employ  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
They  say,  "  It  is  impossible  that  three  should 
•'<  be  one,  or  one  three.  To  assert  it,  is  a  con- 
"  tradiction  in  terms.    The  doctrine  involves 

such  a  palpable  absurdity,  that  no  species  of 


252  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

u  evidence  can  render  it  credible."  In  vain 
we  tell  them,  that  the  Persons  in  the  Trinity 
are  not  three  and  one  in  the  same  sense ;  but 
that  the  Unity  relates  to  one  aspect  of  the 
divine  subsistence,  and  the  Trinity  to  another; 
both  of  which  are  alike  beyond  our  compre- 
hension. They  are  deaf  to  every  explanation, 
and  repeat  the  charge  of  absurdity  and  con- 
tradiction the  thousandth  time,  with  as  much 
confidence  as  if  no  answer  had  ever  been  at- 
/tempted.  Now,  permit  me  to  ask,— upon  the 
principle  which  you  have  laid  down,  what 
would  you  reply  to  such  an  objection  ?  When 
you  say  there  are  three  Persons  in  one  God, 
you  certainly  do  not  use  the  word  Person  in 
any  sense  which  you  are  accustomed  to  recog- 
nize as  applicable  to  human  persons.  What 
-Tto  you  mean,  then,  by  the  term,  as  applied  to 
the  Divine  Being?  You  say,  you  "  do  not 
know."  That  is,  the  wordy  as  thus  employed, 
is  incomprehensible,  as  well  as  the  thing. 
Wherein  this  differs,  in  any  essential  respect, 
from  the  case  in  hand,  I  confess  my  utter  in- 
ability to  perceive.  I  know,  indeed,  that  the 
term  Person  is  not  a  favourite  one  with  you. 
But  still  you  use  it,  and  seem  to  admit  that  it 
must  be  used,  until  a  more  eligible  one  can  be 
found.     But  take  any  other  that  you   may 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  253 

please  to  select — the  term  "  distinction,"  for 
example,  and  say  whether  you  do  not  employ 
it  without  any  definite  idea  whatever  of  the 
nature  of  that  peculiarity  in  the  Divine  exis- 
tence which  it  is  intended  to  express  ;  in  other 
words,  without  any  definite  idea  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term  ?  Nay,  in  all  cases  whatsoever, 
when  we  apply  language  borrowed  from  sen- 
sible objects,  to  a  spiritual  and  infinite  Being, 
does  not  a  measure  of  the  same  incomprehen- 
sible character  which  attaches  to  the  great 
Being  himself,  attach  to  much  of  the  language 
in  which  we  speak  of  his  glory  ?  If  so,  then 
the  distinction,  on  which  you  appear  to  lay  so 
much  stress,  between  what  is  incomprehensi- 
ble in  things  and  in  words,  must,  I  think,  be 
considered,  in  this  case,  as  of  no  importance. 

The  application  of  these  remarks  to  the  sub- 
ject under  discussion,  is  obvious.  When  yoif 
confidently  pronounce  that  the  phrases  "  eter- 
nally begotten,"  "  eternal  generation,"  and 
"  eternal  Son,"  must  necessarily  imply  both 
derivation  and  inferiority,  and,  therefore, 
"  flatly  contradict  all  your  ideas  of  the  Divine 
nature  ;"  you  appear  to  me  evidently  to  as- 
sume, as  the  foundation  of  your  whole  argu- 
ment, that  Sonship  with  God,  and  sonship 
among  men,  must  be  essentially  the  same.  You 

Y 


254  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

virtually  reason  thus — "We  are  acquainted 
"  with  no  paternity  or  sonship  among  men, 
u  which  does  not  imply  priwity  on  the  part 
"  of  the  father,  and  posteriority  on  the  part 
"  of  the  son ;  therefore  it  must  be  so  with 
"  respect  to  the  relation  of  Father  and  Son  in 
"  the  Godhead."  But  can  reasoning  founded 
on  such  principles  be  sound?  Have  we  any  right 
to  take  for  granted  that  the  relation  of  father  and 
son  among  men,  is  the  highest  model,  the  most 
perfect  exemplar  of  that  relation  in  the  uni- 
verse ;  to  which  every  thing  else  that  bears  the 
name  must  be  conformed?  How  know  we  but 
that  sonship  among  men,  is  a  distant  and  ob- 
scure adumbration  of  something  Divine  and 
eternal ;  of  something  as  much  above  it  in 
glory,  as  the  eternal  Mind  is  above  the  feeble, 
grovelling  mind  of  man  ?  You  not  only  cannot 
demonstrate  that  this  is  impossible  ;  but  I  will 
venture  to  say,  that  neither  you  nor  any  other 
man  can  demonstrate,  that  it  is  even  improbable. 
But  until  you  do  demonstrate  that  it  is  not 
only  improbable,  but  also  impossible,  I  must 
consider  your  whole  reasoning  founded  on  the 
objection  which  I  am  now  answering,  as,  sim- 
ply, a  petitio  principii,  or,  which  is  the  same 
thing,  a  gratuitous  assumption,  that,  as  son- 
ship  among  men  implies  attributes  inconsistent 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  255 

with  Divinity  ;  so  Sonship  in  the  Godhead 
m  ust  n  ecessarily  im  ply  attribu  tes  o  f  precise!  y  the 
same  kind.  Would  it  not  be  just  as  logical  to 
argue,  that  because  God  is  said  in  scripture  to 
"  rest  from  labour,"  to  "  repent,"  and  to  be 
"  angry,"  therefore  these  expressions  must  bear 
exactly  the  same  meaning  when  applied  to  the 
Divine  nature,  as  when  spoken  of  men  ? 

But,  if  it  be  supposed  that  the  expressions, 
begotten,  generation,  Son,  are  applied,  as  we 
believe,  to  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity 
in  condescension  to  human  weakness;  that  they 
express  a  necessary  and  eternal,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  an  ineffable  and  incomprehensible 
relation ;  that  there  is  the  same  immeasurable 
distance  between  the  import  of  these  terms 
when  applied  to  human  beings,  and  their  im- 
port when  applied  to  the  Infinite  and  Eternal 
One,  as  there  is  between  earth  and  heaven  ; 
then,  surely,  we  must  be  able  to  comprehend 
God,  before  we  can  safely  pronounce  that  the 
terms  in  question  cannot,  in  any  sense,  ex- 
press a  relation  in  the  Godhead.  Yet  this,  it 
appears  to  me,  is  the  sentence  which  you  do 
pronounce,  whenever  you  urge  the  objection 
which  I  am  now  attempting  to  obviate. 

In  fine,  on  this  objection  : — the  eternal  Son- 
ship of  Christ  is,  undoubtedly,  a  great  mys- 


s 


£56  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

tery.  But  if  the  fact  itself  be  of  a  nature  far 
beyond  the  comprehension  of  men,  perhaps  of 
angels ;  why  need  we  wonder,  if  the  language 
which  infinite  Wisdom  has  chosen  to  use  for 
expressing  it,  (being  necessarily  the  language 
of  mortals)  should  convey  very  inadequate 
ideas  to  our  minds?  Is  not  this,  in  fact,  the 
case  with  respect  to  all  that  language  by  which 
we  attempt  to  lisp  our  ideas  concerning  the 
Infinite  One  ?  Nay,  when  we  know  so  little 
concerning  generation  among  creatures ;  and 
are  so  totally  incapable  of  tracing  the  real 
nature  of  the  relation  between  father  and  son 
even  among  men ;  I  cannot  conceive  how  it 
should  be  reasonably  objected,  that  Sonship  in 
the  eternal  Godhead  cannot  be  comprehended 
by  us  5  or  how  we  can  be  prepared  to  pro- 
nounce, with  intelligence,  that  the  title  of 
Eternal  Son,  can  in  no  proper  sense  apply 
to  the  Second  Person  in  the  Trinity,  without 
destroying  his  Divine  nature. 

II.  Another  objection  to  the  doctrine  for 
which  I  plead,  which  you  seem  to  consider 
as  of  very  serious  import,  is,  that  if  the  gene- 
ration of  the  Son  were  necessary  and  eternal, 
it  could  not  be  voluntary  ;  and  if  not  volun- 
tary, that  I  must  then  be  deprived  of  the  tes- 
timony of  several  of  the  Fathers,  who  repre- 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  257 

sent  the  Son  as  begotten  when  the  Father 
pleased,  or  according  to  his  will.  But  that, 
on  the  other  hand,  if,  as  those  Fathers  assert, 
the  Son  were  begotten  voluntarily,  or  with 
the  will  of  the  Father,  his  generation  could 
not  have  been  eternal. 

This  is  precisely  the  old  Arian  objection, 
which  was  urged  fifteen  hundred  years  ago, 
by  the  adherents  to  that  heresy,  and,  I  think, 
satisfactorily  answered  by  the  Orthodox  of 
that  day.  The  Arians  stated  the  objection 
thus — "  The  Father  either  begat  the  Son  with 
"  his  consent  and  will,  or  against  his  consent 
a  and  will.  If  the  former,  then  that  act  of 
"  the  Divine  will  was  antecedent  to  the  Son's 
u  existence,  and  therefore,  the  Son  was  not 
u  eternal.  The  latter  was  evidently  too  absurd 
•/;  for  any  christian  to  admit."  They  urged 
this  objection  with  great  confidence,  and 
thought  that  they  had  reduced  the  Orthodox 
to  a  dilemma,  from  which  they  could  not  pos- 
sibly escape. 

The  Orthodox,  however,  retorted  the  ar- 
gument, and  reduced  the  Arians,  on  their  own 
principles,  to  a  similar  difficulty  in  their  turn. 
They  answered,  "  Does  God  the  Father  exist 
u  with  his  own  consent  and  will,  or  against 
"  his  own  consent  and  will?  If  the  former, 
Y  2 


258  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

"  then  we  have  an  act  of  the  Divine  will  an- 
"  tecedent  to  the  Divine  existence.  Of  course, 
u  the  Father  is  not  eternal.  The  latter,  no 
"  one  who  believes  in  God  at  all  will  think  of 
"  maintaining."  The  Arians  were  silenced  by 
their  own  reasoning. 

The  Orthodox  had  another  answer,  equally 
conclusive.  They  admitted  that  the  generation 
of  the  Son  was  voluntary,  that  is,  with  the 
consent  and  will  of  the  Father ;  in  the  same 
manner  that  the  Father  possessed  all  his  per- 
fections, necessarily,  and  yet  not  against  his 
will.  They  stated  the  argument  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner.  "  God  the  Father  is  good, 
"  infinitely  good ;  necessarily  and  eternally 
"  good ;  he  could  not  be  God  without  this  at- 
"  tribute.  Yet,  surely,  he  is  not  good  against 
u  his  will;  but  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word, 
**  voluntarily.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  that 
u  which  is  voluntary  may  yet  be  necessary 
u  and  eternal." 

Now,  if  this  reasoning  be  sound,  and  to  me 
it  appears  perfectly  conclusive,  then  it  is  evi- 
dent, that  the  Son  might  have  been  begotten 
from  eternity,  and  necessarily  begotten ;  that 
is,  that  his  relation  of  Sonship  with  the  Fa- 
ther might  have  been  necessary  and  eternal; 
in  other  words,  quite  as  essential  to  the  Divine 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  259 

nature  as  any  thing  that  can  be  predicated  of 
it ;  and  yet  that  this  relation  might  be  with 
the  consent  and  will  of  the  Father.  If  so, 
your  whole  objection,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  falls 
to  the  ground. 

Take  another  illustration  of  the  subject, 
under  a  somewhat  different  aspect.  All  grant 
that  the  Decrees  of  God  were  eternal;  and 
yet  I  know  of  no  christians  who  deny  that  they 
were  perfectly  voluntary.  They  all  flowed 
from  the  u  mere  good  pleasure  of  his  will." 
There  could  have  been  no  higher  or  pre- 
ceding motive.  But  what  would  you  think  of 
any  one  who  should  attempt  to  cavil  against 
the  eternity  of  the  Divine  decrees  by  such  an 
argument  as  the  following — "  The  decrees  of 
"  God  are  acts  of  the  Divine  mind ;  but  every 
"  mind  must  exist  before  it  can  act :  therefore 
u  God  existed  before  he  decreed ;  of  course  his 
"  decrees  were  subsequent  to  his  existence ; 
"  but  that  which  is  subsequent  to  any  thing 
"  cannot  be  co-eval  with  it.  Therefore  the 
u  decrees  of  God  were  not  eternal."  Would 
you  not  reprobate  such  reasoning,  as  absurd 
in  itself,  and  as  not  sufficiently  respectful  to 
that  glorious  Being,  whose  perfections  present 
a  subject  infinitely  too  deep  for  us  to  fathom? 
0  how  incompetent  are  we  to  comprehend  the 


260  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

wonders,  or  to  measure  the  counsels  and  the 
glories  of  Him  who  is  without  a  parallel  in 
the  universe ! 

You  say,  (p.  161.)  "  Take  the  favourite 
"  simile  of  light  proceeding  from  the  sun.  Is 
"  not  the  irradiation  of  light,  it  is  asked,  co- 
"  eval  with  the  sun  ?  As  a  philosopher,  I 
"  should  surely  answer,  No.  For  if  the  sun  is 
«  the  cause  of  irradiation,  in  the  order  of  time 
u  and  of  nature,  the  cause  must  precede  the 
iC  effect"  I  am  humbly  of  opinion,  my  dear 
Sir,  that  if  you  should  answer  so,  whether  "  as 
a  philosopher,"  or  in  any  other  capacity,  you 
would  answer  erroneously.  If  it  be  one  of  the 
essential  qualities  of  the  sun  to  be  radient,  I 
should  no  more  think  of  doubting,  that  irra- 
diation is  co- eval,  in  the  strictest  sense,  with 
the  sun,  than  I  should  think  of  denying  that 
fluidity  is  co-eval  with  water,  or  ponderosity 
and  impenetrability  with  marble. 

If  the  reasoning  sometimes  employed  on  this 
subject  were  admitted,  it  would  prove,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  that  there  could  have  been  no 
such  thing  as  an  eternal  act.  In  other  words, 
it  would  go  to  establish  the  principle,  that  al-  j 
though  the  Father  existed  from  eternity,  he 
could  not  have  acted  from  eternity.  But  can 
this  conclusion  be  admitted  ?  Does  it  not  re- 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


261 


volt  every  thinking  mind  ?  Is  not  God  ne- 
cessarily and  essentially  active  ?  Was  his  ex- 
istence, prior  to  the  work  of  creation,  an  eter- 
nal sleep,  or  repose  ?  If  it  may  be  made  a 
question,  whether  the  human  soul  thinks  al- 
ways ;  surely  it  admits  of  no  question,  whether 
the  infinite  and  eternal  God  thinks  always, 
and  has  done  so  from  eternity,  and  done  it 
voluntarily ;  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  from 
a  necessity  of  his  nature.  Wherein  does  this 
differ  from  an  eternal  emanation  or  genera- 
tion ? 

Nor  is  this  suggestion,  that  the  generation 
of  the  Son  may  be  necessary  and  eternal,  and 
at  the  same  time  voluntary,  a  mere  notion  of 
my  own,  to  evade  a  difficulty.  The  following 
quotation  from  the  learned  Stapfer — a  divine 
who  is  quoted  so  frequently,  and  with  so  much 
respect  and  approbation,  by  the  venerable 
President  Edwards, — will  show  that  the  opi- 
nion rests  on  very  high  authority.  "  Of  the 
••  Father  it  is  declared,  that  he  imparted  di- 
"  vine  life,  and  so  the  divine  essence,  to  the 
u  Son ;  Psalm  ii.  7.  By  which  he  possesses  a 
"  most  active  existence  in  himself,  even  as  the 
"  Father  has  the  same  in  himself.  Whence 
"  arises  the  relation  of  Father  and  Son. — 
u  Since  the  Father  has  given  his  essence  to 


262  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

u  the  Son,  they  both  possess  a  common  essence. 
"  And  so  the  Father  can  be  said  to  have  com- 
"  municated  his  essence  to  the  Son.  Hence 
"  that  generation  is  rightly  termed  the  com- 
u  munication  of  the  Divine  essence.  Seeing 
«  it  is  one  thing  to  generate,  and  another  to 
"  be  generated,  the  first  belongs  to  the  Fa- 
"  ther,  the  latter  to  the  Son.  Hence  it  is  ap- 
u  parent  that  the  Father  possesses  a  property 
"  which  the  Son  has  not ;  and  as  to  that  par- 
iC  ticular,  they  differ  from  each  other." 

u  Because  the  Son  is  true  God,  the  Divine 
u  essence  belongs  to  him,  which  he  has  from 
"  himself.  Hence  he  exists  necessarily,  not 
46  contingently.  Whence  it  follows  that  it  is 
u  impossible  that  he  should  not  have  thus  ex- 
isted; his  generation,  therefore,  is  absolutely 
ii  necessary.  But  God  is  independent,  and 
li  therefore,  can  do  nothing  unwillingly,  or 
u  by  compulsion,  but  always  acts  voluntarily ; 
"  the  generation  of  the  Son,  then,  was  volun- 
"  tary.  But  it  has  been  proved  to  be  ne- 
46  cessary ;  therefore  it  follows  that  this  will  of 
"  generating  the  Son  was  absolutely  necessary. 
"  Whatever  is  absolutely  necessary  is  eternal, 
"  must  be  eternal ;  but  the  generation  of  the 
Ci  Son  is  necessary,  therefore  eternal." 

tf  From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  263 

*f  although  Christ  has  his  essence  from  him- 
"  self,  and  so  is  self- existed ;  yet  as  to  the 
H  mode  of  possessing  that  essence,  he  has  it 
H  from  the  Father.  But  the  Father  has  not 
U  only  his  essence,  but  the  mode  of  possessing 
"  it  from  himself.  Whence  the  Father  is  al- 
"  ways  said  to  act  from  himself,  and  the  Son 
"  to  operate  from  the  Father." * 

You  will  readily  perceive,  my  dear  sir,  that 
the  scope  of  the  foregoing  remarks  is ,  not  to 
explain  how  it  is,  that  what  is  necessary  and 
eternal  may  yet  be  voluntary.  But  it  is  to 
show  how  little  qualified  we  are  to  explore  or 
comprehend  such  subjects.  Truly  such  know- 
ledge is  too  wonderful  for  us  ;  it  is  high;  we 
cannot  attain  unto  it ! 

But  perhaps  you  will  be  disposed  to  ask, 
whether  the  tenour  of  the  foregoing  remarks 
is  entirely  consistent  with  the  manner  in  which 
I  expressed  myself  on  the  same  subject  in  my 
"  Letters  on  Unitarianism  ?"  I  must  say,  in 
candour,  it  is  not.  In  those  Letters  (p.  87.) 
the  following  sentence  occurs.  "  It  has  been 
"  often  well  observed,  that  with  regard  to  all 
"  effects  which  are  voluntary,  the  cause  must 
"  be  prior  to  the  eifect ;  as  the  father  is  to  the 
u  son,   in  human  generation :  but  that  in  all 

.    *  Stapfer.  Imtit,  Polem.  Tom.  i.p.  318. 


264  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

"  that  are  necessary,  the  effect  must  be  co-eval 
"  with  the  cause ;  as  the  stream  is  with  the 
"  fountain,  and  light  with  the  sun."  This 
was  an  unguarded  sentence.  I  do  not,  upon 
more  mature  reflection,  defend  it ;  being  per- 
suaded that  voluntary  and  necessary  are  not 
always  inconsistent  with  each  other,  and  that 
what  is  perfectly  voluntary  may  yet  be  strictly 
eternal. 

III.  You  further  object,  (p.  80.)  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  representation  usually  given  of 
this  subject  by  orthodox  divines,  "  the  Father 
"  imparts  to  the  Son,  the  same  numerical  es- 
"  sence  which  he  himself  possesses,  without  di- 
U  vision.     Now,  if  this  be  the  case,  you  say, 
"  it  follows,  that  the  same  numerical  essence 
"  communicates  the  whole  of  itself  to  the  same 
u  numerical  essence  ;  but  if  so,  you  allege,  it 
W  follows,  that  the  essential  power  or  virtue  of 
u  the  Father,  by  which  he  produces  or  ge- 
u  nerates  the  Son,  must  also  be  communicated 
"  to   him  ;    consequently,  by   virtue  of  this 
"  communication,  the  Son  must  produce  ano- 
"  ther  person  of  the  same  condition  or  ho- 
"  moousian  with  himself;  this  third  person  a 
"  fourth,  and  so  on  without  end.     If  this  be 
u  denied,  then  it  follows  that  one  essential 
'*  power  or  virtue  of  the  Father  is  not  com- 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED-  265 

••  municated  to  the  Son,  viz.  the  power  of  ne- 
"  cessary  eternal  generation.  The  definition, 
"  then,  seems  either  to  be  inconsistent  with 
"  itself,  or  to  imply  an  infinite  number  of  ge- 
"  nerations  in  the  Godhead.  In  either  case, 
"  it  must  be  untenable." — In  answer  to  this 
objection,  I  would  remark, 

(1.)  That  this,  again,  is  an  old  Arian  ob- 
jection, urged  with  great  zeal  by  Dr.  Clarke, 
and  his  adherents,  more  than  an  hundred 
years  ago ;  and  satisfactorily  answered  by  Dr. 
Waterland,  and  others,  who  lived  at  the  same 
time.     But, 

(2.)  I  know  of  no  one  who  holds  the  opi- 
nion here  objected  to,  as  the  objection  ex- 
presses it.  I  know  of  no  one,  for  example,  who 
asserts  or  believes,  that  "  the  same  numerical 
"  essence  communicates  to  itself  the  same  nu- 
"  merical  essence."  And  when  you  ascribe 
this  opinion,  by  inference,  to  Turretine,  I 
sincerely  think  you  do  him  injustice.  That 
profound  Divine,  means  to  assert  no  more,  as 
I  understand  him,  than  that  the  Second  Per- 
son of  the  Trinity  bears  a  relation  to  the  First, 
which  the  scriptures  express  by  the  terms 
Son  and  generation  ;  and  that,  in  virtue  of 
this  generation,  the  Son  possesses  the  same 
complete  and  perfect  Divine  nature  with  the 

Z 


266  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED* 

Father.  I  will  not  undertake,  as  I  observed 
in  a  former  Letter,  to  be  the  apologist  of  Tur- 
retine's  phraseology,  as  in  all  cases  the  most 
correct  and  happy ;  but,  unless  I  am  greatly 
deceived,  his  meaning  is  what  I  have  just 
stated  :  and,  if  so,  I  think  it  may  be  justified. 
(3.)  Does  not  precisely  the  same  difficulty, 
in  this  respect,  attach  to  your  system,  which 
you  impute  to  mine  ?  You  profess  to  believe 
that  the  Logos  is  Divine  and  eternal ;  that  is, 
that  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  pos- 
sesses the  same  Divine  nature,  complete  and 
perfect  as  the  First.  Is  this  unity  of  nature, 
or  essence,  a  numerical,  or  only  a  specifick 
unity  ?  If  the  former,  the  same  objection  may 
be  made  to  it,  which  you  urge  against  my  doc- 
trine; if  the  latter,  then  I  see  not  how  you  will 
avoid  the  charge  of  Tritheism.  But  you  do 
not  leave  me  in  doubt  on  this  subject.  You 
say,  in  your  Letters  to  Dr.  Channing,  that 
the  Father  and  the  Logos  have  each,  "  nu- 
merically, the  same  essence."  But  the 
essence  of  any  being,  you  say  in  your  Letters 
to  me,  (p.  80.)  cannot  be  considered  as  a  dif- 
ferent thing  from  those  attributes  or  predicates 
which  constitute  it  what  it  is.  Therefore,  it 
follows,  that  all  the  predicates  of  the  Logos 
are  exactly  the  same  with  those  of  the  Father; 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  267 

and,  of  course,  the  predicate  of  being  the  Fa- 
ther's Logos,  by  whom  he  made  the  worlds, 
must  be  one  of  the  essential  predicates  of  the 
Father  himself.  Suppose  I  were  to  adopt  such 
reasoning;  what  would  you  think  of  it?  Could 
you  imagine  that  it  was  intended  to  be  se- 
riously urged,  or  that  it  required  a  serious 
answer?  But  wherein  does  it  differ  from  the 
argument  which  you  confidently  adduce,  in 
the  page  last  mentioned,  respecting  the  gene- 
ration of  the  Son  ? 

(4.)  I  have  still  another  difficulty  to  state. 
You  acknowledge  that  between  the  First  and 
Second  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  there  is  a 
distinction  ; — a  distinction  which  we  are  not 
capable  of  explaining ; — a  distinction  the  na- 
ture of  which  is  not  revealed  to  us, — perhaps 
because  we  are  not  capable,  in  the  present 
state,  of  being  made  to  comprehend  it.  Still, 
however,  you  expressly  grant  that  there  is  a 
real  distinction  between  these  mysterious  and 
ever  blessed  Persons.  But  if  there  be  a  dis- 
tinction, there  is  a  difference;  that  is,  the  One 
is  not  the  Other.  The  Logos  is  not  the  Fa- 
ther, nor  the  Father  the  Logos.  In  other 
words,  if  there  be  a  real  and  eternal  distinc- 
tion between  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  then 
that  which  distinguishes  the  First  from  the 


268  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

Second,  and  the  Third  from  both,  is  something 
peculiar  to  each,  and  not  possessed  by  others. 
Now  this  peculiar  personal  property  is  either 
a  perfection,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  be  not  a  per- 
fection, then  each  Person  of  the  Trinity  pos- 
sesses a  property  which  is  not  a  perfection — a 
conclusion  too  shocking  to  be  admitted.  But 
if  it  be  a  perfection,  then  there  is  in  each  one 
of  the  Divine  Persons  a  perfection  which  is 
not  in  the  rest,  and  consequently  each  does  not 
possess  precisely  the  same  predicates  in  all  re- 
spects. I  merely  make  use  of  this  argument, 
my  dear  Sir,  as  an  argumentum  ad  hominem, 
to  show  that  you  neither  gain  any  advantage, 
nor  get  rid  of  any  difficulty,  by  rejecting  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  Sonship.  Precisely  the 
same  difficulties  occur  in  your  own  system. 
I  infer,  then,  yourself  being  judge,  that  the 
objection  which  I  am  combatting  must  fall  to 
the  ground.     But  this  is  not  all ;  for, 

(5.)  By  reasoning  of  the  same  kind,  pre- 
cisely, we  should  strike,  not  merely  at  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  in  any  form;  but  also 
at  some  of  those  perfections  of  God,  which  even 
natural  religion  teaches.  Let  me  select,  as  an 
example,  the  attribute  before  alluded  to.  The 
Bible  teaches  that  God  is  omnipresent ;  and 
the  Deist  acknowledges  the  same  thing.    But, 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  269 

suppose  I  were  to  assail  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divine  omnipresence  thus — "  God,  you  say, 
H  the  same  individual  God,  is  every  where 
"  present ;  and  the  substance  of  God,  is  God. 
"  Now,  is  that  Divine  substance,  which  fills 
"  heaven,  the  same  individual  Divine  sub- 
u  stance  which  fills  earth,  hell,  and  every  part 
"  of  the  universe  ?  If  it  be  not  the  sa?ne  indi- 
"  vidua!  substance,  then  it  is  only  specifically, 
¥  and  not  numerically  the  same :  and  then, 
ff  the  consequence  must  be  that  the  substance 
u  of  God  is  not  one,  but  many,  the  parts  of 
"  which  are  specifically  alike,  but  not  identi- 
"  cally  the  same.  But  further ;  the  Divine 
"  substance  is  in  heaven.  This  no  one  will 
H  deny.  Now  I  ask  whether  the  substance 
U  which  fills  heaven,  be  part  only  of  the  Di- 
"  vine  substance,  or  the  whole  ?  If  it  be  a 
"  part  only,  then  God  is  not  in  heaven,  but  a 
"  part  of  God  only.  If  it  be  the  whole,  then 
u  how  can  God  be  omnipresent?  Can  the 
U  whole  of  the  same  individual  substance  be  in 
"  heaven,  and  at  the  same  time  diffused  over 
«  the  universe  ?  Can  the  whole  of  God  be  in 
"  heaven,  and  at  the  same  time,  the  whole  of 

<*  God  be  every  where  else?" But  you  will 

say,  that  this  is  an  unwarrantable  application 
of  the  mathematical  principles  of  space,  and 
z  2 


270  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

part  and  whole  to  an  infinite  Spirit,  to  whom 
they  cannot  with  propriety  be  applied. — I 
know  it ;  nor  should  I  dare  to  employ  such 
reasoning,  even  by  way  of  illustration,  did  I 
not  hope  to  show  by  it,  that  a  mode  of  arguing 
which  proves  too  much,  or  which  seems  to 
lead  to  the  most  shocking  consequences,  cannot 
be  sound.  But  precisely  similar,  in  my  opi- 
nion, is  the  reasoning  which  forms  the  essence 
of  the  objection  which  I  am  now  answering. 
My  respected  Brother  will  not  imagine,  for  a 
moment,  that  I  charge  him  with  the  shocking 
consequences  which  have  been  mentioned. — 
Far  from  it.  The  consequences  which  he  who 
holds  an  opinion  draws  from  it  are  one  thing; 
those  which  appear  to  others  naturally  and 
necessarily  to  flow  from  it,  may  be  quite  ano- 
ther. I  am  endeavouring,  as  far  as  I  am  able, 
to  trace  your  objection  to  its  elementary  prin- 
ciples :  and  my  deliberate  persuasion  is,  that 
if  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  any  doctrine 
respecting  the  nature  of  God,  is  to  stand  or 
fall  by  argumentation  of  the  kind  in  question, 
we  may  bid  farewell  to  all  theological  truth. 

IV.  Another  objection,  which  appears  to 
weigh  not  a  little  in  your  mind,  is,  that,  if  the 
doctrine  which  I  maintain  respecting  the  Son 
be  correct,  then  there  must  necessarily  be  some 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  271 

dependence  of  the  Son  on  the  Father ;  which 
you  insist  is  utterly  incompatible  with  all  your 
ideas  of  supreme  Godhead. 

In  answer  to  this  objection,  it  would  be  quite 
sufficient,  in  my  opinion,  to  say,  that  the  con- 
sequence with  which  you  charge  my  doctrine 
is  one  which  I  do  not  admit.  The  generation — 
the*  Sonship  for  which  I  contend,  I  suppose  to 
be,  as  has  been  before  repeatedly  said,  so  per- 
fectly unique,  so  infinitely  and  sublimely  pe- 
culiar, as  not  to  imply  either  inferiority  or 
subordination.  And  until  you  can  prove 
(which  I  am  sure  you  never  can)  that  it  is  im- 
possible there  should  be  a  generation,  a  Son- 
ship  of  this  ineffable  character,  in  the  infinite 
and  incomprehensible  God,  I  must  consider  the 
objection  as  having  no  real  force. 

But  let  us  see  whether  this  very  objection 
does  not  lie  equally,  on  your  principles,  against 
your  own  doctrine,  of  the  Divinity  of  the 
Logos,  You  say  that  the  Logos  is  Divine 
and  eternal ;  that  he  is  self- existent,  indepen- 
dent, and  possessed,  equally  with  the  Father, 
of  every  Divine  perfection.  Now,  I  ask, 
agreeably  to  a  suggestion  in  my  fourth  Letter, 
do  you  maintain  that  the  Logos  has  a  divine 
nature  altogether  and  strictly  independent  of 
the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Do  you  sup- 


272  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

pose  that  the  Second  Person  of  the  adorable 
Trinity  has,  in  himself,  a  separate  and  com- 
plete Divinity,  which  might  exist  without  the 
First  and  Third  ?  Those  who  admit  this  idea, 
appear  to  me  to  overlook  the  important  fact, 
that  the  essential  predicates  of  Divinity,  as 
self- existence,  independence,  &c.  belong  not  to 
any  one  of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  con- 
sidered absolutely  independently  of  the  other 
two ;  but  they  belong  to  the  Divine  Being. 
The  Tri-une  Jehovah  is  self-existent,  inde- 
pendent, &c.  In  this  Jehovah  there  are  three 
Persons,  partaking  equally,  and  without  limit, 
of  these  predicates  or  attributes.  The  fact, 
then,  (if  it  be  a  fact,  as  I  believe  it  is)  that 
the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  is  necessa- 
rily and  eternally  begotten  by  the  First ;  that 
is,  necessarily  and  eternally  bears  that  relation 
to  the  First  Person  which  is  called  Sonship, 
and  possesses  the  same  nature  with  him — will 
not  at  all  affect  the  predicates  which  belong  to 
the  infinitely  perfect  and  glorious  Divine 
Being  as  such.  If  it  do,  then  I  think  it  may 
be  shown,  that  the  same  difficulty,  to  precisely 
the  same  extent,  will  apply  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  as  stated  by  yourself,  in  your  Let- 
ters to  Dr.  Channing ;  You  say,  you  "be- 
"  Heve  that  God  is  one ;  that  the  Father,  the 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  273 

•<  Logos,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  have,  numeri- 
"  cally,  the  same  essence,  and  the  same  per- 
"  feetions  f9  and  that  each  of  these  Persons  is 
truly  God.  Now,  suppose  an  objector  were  to 
ask  you,  whether,  when  you  say  the  Father  is 
truly  God,  you  mean,  that  the  Father  possesses 
the  essence  and  the  perfections  of  Divinity, 
altogether  independently  of  the  Logos  and  the 
Holy  Ghost?  What  would  you  say?  You 
would  not,  I  presume,  say,  yes ;  for  that  would 
be  to  avow  a  belief  in  three  separate,  indepen- 
dent Gods.  You  would  probably  say,  no  ;  the 
Sacred  Three  do  not  possess,  each  alone,  com- 
plete Divinity.  They  possess  it  conjointly 
and  equally.  But  the  objector  would  proba- 
bly reply.  If  this  be  so,  then  the  Father  is, 
in  some  sense,  (that  is  by  his  equal,  perfect, 
necessary,  and  eternal  communion  in  these  at- 
tributes  with  the  other  two  Persons)  dependent 
on  the  Logos,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  is 
not,  he  cannot  be  God  without  them ;  and, 
therefore,  he  is  not,  as  a  distinct  Person,  abso- 
lutely, and  in  every  sense,  independent,  and, 
consequently,  is  not  alone  the  Supreme  God. 
Perhaps  you  would  have  much  more  to  say  to 
such  an  objector  than  I  can  think  of.  But  I 
acknowledge,  my  dear  Sir,  if  I  took  the  ground 
on  which  spme  of  your  objections  to  my  creed 


274  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

appear  to  rest,  the  reasoning  of  such  an  ob- 
jector would  not  a  little  perplex  me. 

Allow  me,  then,  most  respectfully,  to  ask  you, 
what  your  ideas  are  respecting  the  relation 
which  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  bear  to  each 
other?  I  am  induced  to  ask  this,  from  my 
being  really  at  a  loss  to  interpret  some  of  your 
reasoning,  without  resorting  to  principles 
which,  I  suspect,  neither  you  nor  I  would  be 
willing  to  adopt.  If,  on  the  one  hand,  you 
suppose  that  each  Person  of  the  adorable 
Trinity  has,  in  himself,  a  complete,  separate, 
independent,  Divine  existence,  m  such  a  sense 
as  to  be  alone,  the  infinite  Jehovah,  then,  I 
see  not,  as  I  have  already  intimated,  how  you 
are  to  avoid  the  charge  of  Tritheism.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  you  admit,  with  me,  that  three 

INCOMPREHENSIBLY  RELATED  PERSONS,  Con- 
stitute the  one,  self  existent,  independent,  and 
glorious  Jehovah ;  that  no  one  of  these  Per- 
sons, (though  all  equally  possess  the  same  Di- 
vine nature,)  can  alone  have  the  predicates  of 
the  Godhead  ascribed  to  him ;  and  that  it  is 
the  mysterious  union  of  all  which  constitutes 
the  self-existent  and  independent  God :  then 
it  appears  to  me  that  all  that  reasoning  which 
you  offer  by  way  of  objection  to  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  Sonship,  as  if  the  Son,  according  to 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  275 

that  doctrine,  must  necessarily  be  a  dependent 
being,  may  be  offered,  on  exactly  the  same 
principle,  and  lies  with  just  as  much  force, 
against  your  doctrine  of  the  eternal  Logos. 
Perhaps,  however,  you  can  give  such  an  ex- 
planation of  your  views  on  this  subject,  as  to 
divest  them  of  all  that  difficulty  with  which 
they  appear  to  me  to  be  attended. 

V.  Finally  ;  you  object,  that  the  doctrine  I 
maintain,  instead  of  being  friendly,  as  has  been 
commonly  supposed,  to  an  enlightened  defence 
of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  is  really  hostile  to  both  ;  and 
though  generally  held  by  persons  who  abhor 
Arianism,  yet  bears  an  alliance  with  that 
heresy,  by  no  means  remote.  Nor  is  this  a 
new  objection,  or  confined  to  yourself.  It  has 
been,  long  since,  frequently  made  by  others 
with  great  confidence. 

It  appears  to  me  a  sufficient  answer  to  this 
objection  to  remark,  that  the  genuine  and  na- 
tural tendency  of  any  doctrine  is,  undoubtedly, 
to  be  decided  by  matter  of  fact.  What,  then, 
I  ask,  has  been  found,  in  fact,  to  be  the  in- 
fluence of  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  Sonship 
of  Christ,  among  those  who  have  embraced  it, 
in  reference  to  the  point  of  this  objection  ?  Is 
it  common  for  the  strenuous  defenders  of  the 


276  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

doctrine  of  the  eternal  generation,  to  fall  into 
Arianism  ?  Or,  did  you  ever  hear  of  a  ease  in 
which  the  two  doctrines  were  found  together 
in  the  same  individual  ?  A  few  Semi-arians, 
indeed,  have  professed  to  believe  in  the  eter- 
nal generation  of  the  Son,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  in  his  inferiority  to  the  Father  ;  but  ex- 
amples of  this  kind  are  so  very  rare,  that  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  take  them  into  the  ac- 
count. Where,  then,  is  the  evidence  of  na- 
tural alliance  ?  I  doubt  whether  any  two  doc- 
trines are,  either  in  principle  or  in  fact,  more 
remote  or  abhorrent  from  each  other,  than  the 
doctrine  for  which  I  plead,  and  the  Arian 
heresy. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  ask,  whether  the  opi- 
nion that  the  Sonship  of  Christ  is  not  divine 
and  eternal,  but  constituted  by  his  incarnation 
and  resurrection,  is  not  often  found  in  con- 
nection with  Arian  principles ;  and  whether 
it  does  not  appear  to  have  a  natural  alliance 
with  them  ?  Have  not  Unitarian  sentiments, 
manifestly,  had  most  prevalence  in  those  parts 
of  our  country,  in  which  these  ideas  of  the  Sa- 
viour's Sonship  have  been  most  widely  dif- 
fused? You  explicitly  acknowledge  that  the 
fact  is  so ;  but  at  the  same  time  contend  that 
it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  other  causes  than  those 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  27? 

which  imply  an  alliance  between  these  two 
classes  of  opinions.  I  have  no  doubt,  my 
dear  Brother,  that  in  saying  this,  you  express 
your  sincere  convictions.  But  I  have  quite  as 
little  doubt  that  you  are  mistaken  5  and  that 
one  great  reason  why  so  many  of  the  clergy  of 
New-England  have  "  turned  aside  to  fables," 
in  reference  to  the  person  of  the  blessed  Re- 
deemer, is,  that  large  numbers  of  them  have 
been  so  long  in  the  habit  of  speculating  on  that 
mysterious  subject  with  an  unguarded  freedom, 
that,  before  they  were  aware,  they  became 
inextricably  entangled  in  the  toils  of  fatal  error. 
And  I  trust  I  do  not  forget  the  profound  re- 
spect which  is  due  to  Fathers  and  Brethren,  at 
whose  feet  it  would  be  a  privilege  to  sit  and 
learn,  when  I  venture  to  add  a  prediction, 
that,  if  the  same  species  of  speculation  should 
continue  to  operate  and  to  spread,  the  cause 
of  Unitarianism  will  gain  ground  in  a  corres- 
ponding proportion.  Not  that  I  consider  the 
prevalence  of  the  doctrine  under  consideration. 
as  the  sole  cause — perhaps  not  even  the  prin- 
cipal one, — of  the  spread  of  Unitarian  opi- 
nions in  New-England.  I  am  aware,  as  you 
suggest,  that  others  also,  of  no  small  force,  may 
be  assigned.  But  that  it  is  one,  and  by  no 
means  the  least,  of  the  real  causes,  I  cannot 
A  a 


278  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

possibly  doubt,  when  I  attend  to  the  history  of 
theological  sentiments  in  that  section  of  our 
country. 

I  have  thus  attempted,  in  a  cursory  manner, 
to  examine  and  to  answer  the  principal  ob- 
jections urged  in  your  pamphlet.  Some  others 
might  be  noticed ;  I  shall  not,  however,  pur- 
sue this  branch  of  the  subject  further,  but  pro- 
ceed to  what  remains  of  my  task.  In  general, 
your  objections  to  my  creed  appear  to  me  to 
present  no  greater  difficulties,  than  those  mys- 
teries of  our  holy  religion,  which  you  profess 
to  receive,  every  where  present : — no  greater, 
and,  in  some  respects,  not  so  great,  as  attend  your 
own  system  : — and  certainly  not  greater  than 
are  presented  by  several  of  those  attributes  of 
the  Most  High,  which  natural  religion  teaches, 
and  which  all  who  are  not  atheists  agree  in  re- 
ceiving. Indeed  I  deliberately  think  it  would 
not  be  difficult  to  show,  that  much  of  the  rea- 
soning which  you  employ  against  the  eternal 
Sonship  of  Christ,  might  with  equal  force  be 
directed  against  the  self- existence  and  eternity 
of  God.  If  "  eternal  Son"  be  a  contradiction, 
I  see  not  but  that  "  eternal  purposes"  are  a 
contradiction, — and  that  an  U  eternal  cove- 
nant" is  a  contradiction ;  nay,  I  see  not  but 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  279 

that  eternal  existence,  in  any  form,  is  an  ab- 
surdity ! 

Before  I  close  this  letter,  allow  me  in  the 
fullness  of  a  respectful  and  fraternal  heart, 
to  offer  to  your  consideration  one  query. — 
Are  not  some  of  the  speculations  and  rea- 
sonings in  which  you  have  indulged,  especially 
in  your  fourth  Letter,  and  in  which  I  have  at- 
tempted to  follow  you  in  the  present,  rather 
calculated  to  make  the  mind  irreverent,  and 
even  profane,  than  to  nourish  pious  feeling  ? 
I  do  seriously  doubt,  from  my  own  experience, 
whether  it  is  possible  for  almost  any  man  to 
pursue  such  speculations  to  any  great  extent, 
without  being  sensible  of  a  very  undesirable 
influence  resulting  from  them.  If  I  know  my- 
self, I  do  not  say  this  from  a  wish  to  skreen 
any  of  my  opinions  from  thorough  investiga- 
tion ;  but  from  sincere  doubt  whether  it  is  for 
edification  to  be  much  engaged  in  such  in- 
quiries. I  am  not  afraid  of  their  logical  re- 
sult, but  of  their  practical  impression  on  the 
mind.  It  is  possible  to  speculate  on  the  most 
awful  of  all  subjects  in  such  a  manner  as  to  ba- 
nish every  reverential  and  devout  feeling.  If 
I  were  to  judge  from  the  effect  of  it  on  my 
own  heart,  I  certainly  should  not  be  willing  to 
recur  to  it  frequently,  or  to  continue  it  long. 


280  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

I  commit  these  remarks,  my  dear  Sir,  with 
affectionate  freedom,  to  your  candour.  If 
they  have  been  dictated  by  a  morbid  sensi- 
tiveness, or  by  something  less  excusable,  on 
my  part,  forgive  them.  If  there  is  any  just- 
ness in  them,  you  will,  no  doubt,  be  disposed 
to  appreciate  and  apply  them  aright.  In  the 
mean  time  I  hasten  to  my  closing  letter, 


LETTER  VIII. 


Concluding  Remarks, 


BEVEREND  AND  BEAR  BROTHER, 

I  have  now  completed  the  task  which 
I  prescribed  to  myself  in  entering  on  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  subject.  I  have  given  a  brief 
exhibition  of  that  evidence  on  which  I  have 
been  accustomed  to  rest  my  belief  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  eternal  Sonship  of  the  blessed  Re- 
deemer. How  the  considerations  offered  may 
appear  in  your  view,  or  in  that  of  others,  un- 
der whose  inspection  they  may  come,  is  not 
for  me  to  conjecture.  I  can  only  say,  they 
have  satisfied  me  that  the  old  and  commonly 
received  doctrine  among  the  Orthodox,  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  ought  to  be  held 
fast. 

It  is  not  improper  to  remind  you,  my  dear 
Aa2 


282  CONCLUDING   REMARKS. 

Sir,  of  what  your  own  similar  situation  will 
enable  you  easily  to  appreciate; — that  the 
foregoing  Letters  have  been  prepared  in  those 
small  fragments  of  time  which  the  daily  re- 
curring duties  of  a  most  laborious  station,  per- 
mitted me  to  redeem,  for  the  purpose ;  and 
that,  of  course,  scarcely  a  single  line  has  been 
written  without  the  pressure  either  of  that 
haste  or  that  weariness,  which  those  who  are 
similarly  situated  know  well  how  to  estimate. 
If,  in  these  circumstances,  in  attempting  to 
run  a  race  with  my  engagements,  I  should 
have,  in  any  case,  misapprehended  your  mean- 
ing ;  or  failed  of  hitting  the  point  of  your  argu- 
ment; or  expressed  my  own  meaning  vaguely; 
or,  above  all,  approached  to  any  thing  like 
acerbity  of  manner; — I  trust  you  will  be 
ready  to  assign  and  admit  the  proper  apology 
for  it.  It  is  literally  true,  that  my  discussion 
is  long,  because  "  I  have  not  had  time  to  make 
it  shorter."  And  it  is  equally  true,  that,  after 
all  my  prolixity,  I  have  been  constrained  to 
wave  the  consideration  of  a  number  of  things, 
which  it  was  desirable  to  have  noticed,  by  the 
fear  that  your  patience  would  be  exhausted ; 
and  that  even  if  your*s  was  not,  that  of  my 
other  readers  could  hardly  be  expected  to 


CONCLUDING   REMARKS.  283 

hold  out  through  a  more  protracted  corres- 
pondence. 

This  discussion,  indeed,  has  grown  under 
my  hands  to  an  extent  greatly  beyond  my  ori- 
ginal plan.  That  plan,  as  I  intimated  to  you, 
in  a  private  communication,  was  simply  to 
state,  in  a  single  Letter,  my  general  views  of 
the  subject  of  our  correspondence,  and  to  as- 
sign, with  as  much  brevity  as  possible,  my 
principal  reasons  for  dissenting  from  you  in 
opinion  on  that  subject.  But  I  have  been  in- 
sensibly led  on  from  argument  to  argument, 
and  from  authority  to  authority,  until  the  re- 
sult is — a  little  volume. 

And  here,  allow  me,  my  dear  Brother,  un- 
feignedly  to  thank  you  for  inviting  me  to  re- 
examine this  subject. — I  will  confess,  that  it 
had  never,  until  now,  fallen  in  my  way  to  in- 
vestigate the  doctrine  before  us  with  more  than 
the  ordinary  attention  with  which  I  had  gone 
over  this  with  the  other  Loci  Communes  of 
the  system  of  didactick  and  polemick  Theo- 
logy. I  am  indebted  to  you  for  an  inducement 
to  review  and  extend  my  inquiries  on  the  sub- 
ject. For  the  impartiality  with  which  these 
inquiries  have  been  conducted,  I  cannot  un- 
dertake to  vouch.  But  with  respect  to  the 
great  addition  to  the  satisfaction  and  confidence 


284  CONCLUDING   REMARKS. 

with  which  I  rest  in  my  old  opinion,  which 
have  resulted  from  them,  I  cannot  easily  be 
mistaken. 

But  you  will,  perhaps,  ask  me,  what  degree 
of  importance  I  attach  to  the  question  under 
discussion  ?  In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  I  will 
unveil  to  you  my  whole  heart,  as  I  have  so 
constantly  charged  myself  to  do,  on  every 
point  in  the  preceding  pages. 

I  do  not  suppose,  then,  that  it  ought  to  be 
ranked  among  the  fundamentals  of  Chris 
tianity.  If  a  brother  maintain  faithfully  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity ; — avoiding 
Sabellianism  on  the  one  hand,  and  Tri-theism 
on  the  other.  If  he  maintain  the  strict  Per- 
sonality and  Divinity  of  the  Second  and  Third 
Persons,  as  well  as  of  the  First,  in  the  adorable 
Godhead :  if,  disliking  the  phrase,  eternal  ge- 
neration or  Sons  hip,  he  maintain  the  doctrine 
of  an  eternal  Word,  intead  of  an  eternal  Son; 
meaning  thereby  a  distinct  Person,  one  with 
the  Father,  "  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in 
power  and  glory ;"  and  if  he  suppose  that  the 
terms  Son,  generation,  and  begotten  refer  to 
the  incarnation  of  this  eternal  Word,  or  his 
investiture  with  office: — I  say,  if  any  one 
should  prefer  this  view  of  the  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  Personality  and  Divinity  of  the 


CONCLUDING   REMARKS.  285 

Saviour,  rather  than  that  which  has  been  ex- 
hibited and  defended  in  the  preceding  pages ; 
—though  I  must  regret  his  embracing  what  I 
deem  an  error,  and  an  error  by  no  means 
likely  to  be  harmless  ;  yet  it  would  never  oc- 
cur to  me  to  think,  for  one  moment,  of  placing 
it  in  the  list  of  radical  errors.  For  example, 
no  candid  inquirer,  I  should  suppose,  would 
hesitate  to  acknowledge  the  general  orthodoxy 
of  the  pious  and  venerable  Dr.  Ridgley,  or 
would  venture  to  brand  him  as  a  heretick,  for 
the  doctrine  which  he  has  so  zealously  taught 
on  the  subject  of  this  correspondence. 

Yet,  as  I  said,  I  must  deeply  regret  the 
propagation  of  such  a  doctrine,  and  cannot 
consider  it  as  by  any  means  likely  to  be  inno- 
cent ;  nay,  it  does  strike  me  as  likely  to  exert 
a  pernicious  influence.  My  reasons  for  making 
this  estimate  are  the  following. 

In  the  first  place,  all  departures  from  the 
simplicity  and  purity  of  Gospel  truth  are  to 
be  regretted ;  and  especially  those  which  have 
a  reference  to  a  subject  so  all-important  as  the 
Person  of  the  Redeemer.  If,  therefore,  the 
doctrine  which  I  oppose  be  really  a  departure 
from  truth,  though  by  no  means  a  destructive 
error,  it  cannot,  I  take  for  granted,  be  deemed 
entirely  harmless. 


286  CONCLUDING   REMARKS. 

Again ;  if  the  doctrine  which  I  maintain  be 
the  doctrine  of  scripture,  then  you,  and  those 
who  think  with  you,  are  chargeable  with  in- 
troducing not  only  a  new  doctrine,  but  also  a 
new  phraseology  into  the  Church,  which  will 
not  well  comport  with  established  theological 
language,  and,  of  course,  will  be  likely  both  to 
perplex  and  mislead.  Nor  is  it  easy,  in  my 
opinion,  to  estimate  the  mischief  which  such  a 
derangement  of  current  language,  as  to  im- 
portant subjects,  would  be  apt  to  produce.  I 
am  under  the  impression,  that  if  the  mass  of 
plain  unlettered  christians  were  made  to  be- 
lieve that  the  title  Son,  in  the  form  of  Bap- 
tism prescribed  by  our  Saviour,  and  in  other 
parts  of  scripture,  did  not  properly  express 
an  eternal  relation  and  Person  in  the  Godhead, 
as  such,  but  something  else,  and  something 
less ;  no  criticism  or  explanation  that  you,  or 
any  other  man  could  give,  would  be  likely  to 
prevent  their  faith  in  the  Divinity  of  the  Sa- 
viour, and  in  the  Trinity  generally,  from  being 
seriously  shaken. 

Further  ;  if  the  phrase,  Son  of  God,  be  de- 
nied to  import  a  divine  and  eternal  relation, 
the  denial  cannot  fail,  as  it  appears  to  me,  to 
render  a  number  of  passages  of  scripture,  in 
which  the  Saviour  is  called  Son,  much  less 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  287 

pointed  and  decisive  as  proofs  of  his  Divinity, 
than  they  have  been  generally  considered  by 
the  Orthodox,  and  certainly  are,  on  the  old,  and 
long  established  ground.  I  have  long  thought, 
and  am  still  constrained  to  believe,  that  some 
of  the  strongest  passages  in  the  New  Testa^ 
ment  in  favour  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  are 
among  those  which  ascribe  Divine  attributes  to 
him  as  Son.  A  number  of  these  have  been  re- 
cited in  preceding  Letters.  But  if  it  be  as- 
sumed that  his  Sonship  is  not  Divine  and  eter- 
nal, will  not  the  argument  commonly  drawn 
from  these  passages  be  impaired,  if  not  de- 
stroyed ?  If  I  know  my  own  heart,  I  am  not 
desirous  of  claiming  a  single  text  in  support  of 
the  Divinity  of  Christ,  which  does  not  clearly 
teach  the  doctrine  :  but  neither  am  I  willing  to 
relinquish  any  which  do  really  teach  that  pre- 
cious truth,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all 
my  hopes. 

Finally  5  if  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  may  be 
Son  by  office,  and  not  by  nature  and  eternally ; 
will  not  many  be  ready  to  suppose,  upon  simi- 
lar principles,  that  he  may  be  God  by  office  P 
The  Socinians,  you  know,  contend,  that  this  is 
the  only  sense  in  which  he  is  called  God  in 
scripture.  And,  really,  I  cannot  help  think- 
ing, that,  if  the  doctrine  which  I  oppose  be 


288  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

once  admitted,  it  will  prove,  in  this  way,  no 
small  concession  to  the  Unitarian  cause.  This, 
I  know,  is  far  from  being  intended  by  those  who 
hold  the  doctrine  in  question.  Nay,  they 
insist,  and  no  doubt  sincerely  believe,  that  its 
tendency  is  directly  of  the  opposite  kind.  But 
my  impression  is,  that  they  are  deceived,  and 
that  the  result  will  prove  the  fact  to  be  so. 

Such  is  my  estimate  of  the  unfavourable  in- 
fluence of  this  doctrine,  even  when  held  in  the 
least  exceptionable  form,  and  when  vindicated 
upon  the  plan  of  the  pious  and  valuable  Dr. 
Ridgeley,  and  those  of  his  school.  Not  that  I 
suppose,  by  any  means,  that  it  is  always  pro- 
ductive of  these  effects.  For  I  have  no  doubt 
that  it  is  held,  and  zealously  held,  by  some, 
who  set  as  illustrious  an  example  of  eminent 
piety,  and  maintain  the  Divinity  of  the  Sa- 
viour with  as  much  decision,  as  any  other  classes 
of  believers.  But  the  question  is,  whether  the 
genuine  tendency  of  the  doctrine  which  I  op- 
pose, is  not,  as  I  have  suggested,  unfriendly, 
in  a  variety  of  respects,  to  the  Divine  dignity 
and  glory  of  Him  who  is  the  Foundation  of  our 
hope,  and  the  Life  of  our  souls  ?  If  it  be,  what- 
ever may  be  the  piety,  the  learning,  or  the 
usefulness  of  some  who  may  appear  as  its  ad- 
vocates, no  wise  man  will  be  reconciled  to  their 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  289 

error  on  this  account.  The  question  is,  not, 
how  great  may  be  the  personal  worth,  or  the 
ministerial  services,  of  particular  individuals 
who  espouse  it ;  but  whether  it  accords  with 
the  word  of  God,  and  is  adapted  to  honour  the 
Saviour.  I  will  not  undertake  to  say,  that  no 
one  can  hold  the  doctrine  in  question,  without 
doing  or  suffering  an  injury  by  means  of  it  5 
but  I  will  venture  with  confidence  to  decide, 
that,  if  it  be  a  departure  at  all  from  the  purity 
of  gospel  truth,  it  cannot  circulate  generally 
through  the  mass  of  a  religious  community, 
without  mischief,  and  probably  very  serious 
mischief. 

But,  my  dear  brother,  I  hope  you  will  not 
ascribe  it  to  the  least  unfriendliness  of  feeling, 
when  I  say,  that  the  doctrine  which  you  main- 
tain on  the  subject  of  this  correspondence,  con- 
sidered in  itself,  does  not  by  any  means  excite 
so  much  apprehension  in  my  mind,  as  the 
means  to  which  you  resort  for  its  support. 
The  doctrine  itself  \  cannot,  indeed,  contemplate 
wholly  without  fear,  in  any  form ;  but  the  me- 
dium of  proof  which  you  employ,  I  regard  with 
much  more  uneasiness.  A  number  of  your  ar- 
guments; the  strain  of  your  principal  ob- 
jections ;  and  the  license  which  you  indulge, 
in  many  cases,  in  the  interpretation  of  scrip- 
B  b 


/ 


290  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

ture, — all  savour  so  much  of  a  school  with 
which  I  should  abhor  the  thought  of  associating 
your  respected  name,  that  I  read  them  with 
not  a  little  pain;  a  pain  altogether  uncon- 
nected with  the  circumstance  of  their  coming 
from  an  opposer  of  my  creed.  Yes,  my  dear 
Sir,  though  I  know  you  abhor  the  sentiments  of 
that  school,  from  your  heart ;  yet,  if  your  name 
were  removed  from  the  title  page ;  ^nd  if  the 
several  passages  in  which  you  profess  your 
firm  belief  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  were  ex- 
punged from  your  pamphlet,  I  should  really 
suspect  that  it  had  come  from  some  member  of 
the  Unitarian  ranks,  rather  than  from  the 
midst  of  the  Othodox  camp.  I  again  deprecate 
any  misconstruction  of  this  remark :  but  it  is 
the  simple  truth ;  and  I  know  it  to  have  been 
made  by  a  number  of  others,  as  well  as  my- 
self. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  however,  I  con- 
sider you  as  a  sincere  Trinitarian,  and  as  a  truly 
pious  Christian.  I  can  as  cordially  reciprocate 
this  acknowledgment,  as  you  kindly  make  it  in 
my  case.  I  go  farther ;  and  hesitate  not  to 
say,  that  I  entertain  the  same  opinion  of  the 
great  body  of  my  fathers  and  brethren  in  New 
England,  who  agree  with  you  in  respect  to 
this  doctrine.     I  believe  them  to  be  faithful 


CONCLUDING  REMAKKS.  291 

ministers,  daily  doing  good,  and  leading  souls 
to  glory.  Yet,  with  my  views  of  the  subject,  I 
cannot  but  tremble  for  the  next  generation.  It 
is  common  to  say  that  a  stream  can  never  rise 
higher  than  its  fountain  :  and,  in  the  natural 
world,  this  is  ordinarily  true.  But  not  so  in 
the  intellectual  and  moral  world.  As  a  literary 
and  scientifick  teacher  may  put  others  in  the 
way  of  being  far  more  learned  than  himself ;  so 
ecclesiastical  history  furnishes  many  examples 
of  Theologians,  who,  though  substantially  or- 
thodox, and  fervently  pious  themselves,  did, 
in  fact,  so  conduct  their  instructions,  as  to  send 
out  pupils,  many,  if  not  the  larger  portion  of 
whom  were  grievously  heretical.  This  is  said 
to  have  been  in  a  measure  the  case  with  the 
pious  and  eminently  useful  Dr.  Doddridge,  of 
Great  Britain,  and  it  may  be,  to  a  still  greater 
extent,  the  case  again,  with  men  whose  praise 
is,  deservedly,  in  all  the  churches. 

Say,  not,  my  respected  Friend,  that  in 
making  these  remarks,  I  undertake  to  "  ad- 
minister a  reproof"  to  you,  or  to  others  who 
adopt  the  same  opinion.  Far  from  it.  I  feel 
that  I  have  no  title  to  assume  the  character 
of  a  "  reprover"  of  brethren,  who  have  not 
only  the  same  right  to  the  free  exercise  of  pri- 
vate judgment  with  myself  $  but  who;  also,  as 


292  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

I  am  bound  to  believe,  have  inquired  with  at 
least  as  much  intelligence,  industry,  and  can- 
dour as  myself.  In  the  exercise  of  the  right 
alluded  to,  I  have  come  to  certain  conclusions 
concerning  the  importance  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Saviour's  eternal  Sonship;  and  the  ten- 
dency of  the  opposite  doctrine.  These  I  have 
ventured  to  express, — I  hope  with  calmness 
and  decorum, — certainly  with  sincerity.  I 
ask  for  no  further  attention  to  them  than  their 
intrinsick  character  demands.  When  you  ad- 
dress me,  therefore,  in  the  language  of  the  Gre- 
cian chief — "  Strike,  but  hear  me  ;" — my  re- 
ply is— Hear  you,  most  respectfully  and  cheer- 
fully, I  will ;  but  strike  you,  I  will  not.  We 
are  near  enough  to  walk  together  in  love.  Cer- 
tainly too  near  to  allow  of  hard  thoughts  or 
speeches  of  each  other. 

I  will  now,  my  dear  Friend,  bring  this  cor- 
respondence, on  my  part,  to  a  close. — I  hope  a 
final  one.  For  although  I  have  too  much 
respect  for  the  reverend  Brother  whom  I  ad- 
dress, to  resolve,  even  in  my  own  mind,  that 
I  will  not  reply  to  any  thing  he  may  hereafter 
write  on  this  subject ;  and,  I  trust,  too  much 
love  of  truth  to  retreat  from  the  defence  of  it, 
when  there  is  the  least  prospect  of  saying  a 
word  usefully  in  its  support ;  yet  the  idea  of 


' 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  293 

being  engaged  in  a  publick  "  discussion"  with 
you,  in  a  manner  involving  difference  of  opinion, 
( — and  which  others  will  assuredly  call  a  "  con- 
troversy," in  spite  of  us) — is  so  painful  to  me, 
that  I  shall  not  for  any  light  reasons  take  up 
my  pen  on  this  subject  again.  I  would  much 
rather  that  we  should  spend  our  leisure  hours 
in  the  culture  of  that  brotherly  love  which,  it 
is  my  earnest  hope,  may  ever  subsist  between 
us  ;  and  in  recommending  to  our  Pupils,  and 
supporting  before  the  world,  those  great  fun- 
damental and  practical  principles  of  our  com- 
mon salvation,  in  which  we  are  substantially 
agreed,  and  which  we  concur  in  regarding  as 
of  infinite  importance.  .  Verily,  my  Brother, 
there  is  enough  in  these  principles  to  engage 
the  whole  of  the  best  acquirements,  and  the 
best  energies,  that  we  can  summon  to  their 
defence.  I  especially  feel  that  this  is  the  case 
now,  when  a  spirit  of  unhallowed  speculation 
has  extensively  gone  forth;  a  spirit  which, 
while  it  calls  itself  Christian,  is  employed  in 
denying  or  perverting  every  thing  worthy  of 
the  name.  Infinitely  rather  would  I  join  with 
you,  in  devoting  myself,  such  as  I  am,  to  the 
diffusion  of  a  counter  spirit ;  to  the  dissemina- 
tion of  that  precious  Gospel,  which  is  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that 


294  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

believeth.  In  such  a  conflict,  however  irksome 
in  some  respects  it  may  be,  there  is  a  consola- 
tion not  to  be  described ;  and  a  never- failing 
benefit  to  the  cause  of  the  Redeemer,  which  it 
is  not  for  us  to  attempt  to  measure.  But  from 
the  continuance  of  the  present  discussion,  I 
acknowledge  that  my  anticipations  of  either 
pleasure  or  advantage,  are  few  and  small.  I 
even  doubt,  as  I  suggested  in  the  preceding 
Letter,  whether  it  can  ever  minister  much  to 
u  godly  edifying,"  for  those  who  are  in  the 
main  agreed  respecting  the  Divine  character 
of  the  Redeemer,  to  spend  much  of  their  time 
in  speculating,  if  I  may  so  express  it,  about 
the  philosophy  of  his  Person.  On  this  subject, 
and  on  similar  subjects,  to  walk  in  the  plain 
light  of  scripture,  and  in  the  footsteps  of  the 
flock,  is  the  wisest  as  well  as  the  safest  course. 
In  bidding  you  farewell,  allow  me  to  add,  as 
one  more  tribute  to  that  cordial  amity  which  I 
wish  to  subsist  between  us,  that  if  I  have  writ- 
ten a  word  which  is,  in  the  remotest  degree, 
inconsistent  with  a  fraternal  spirit,  it  is  my 
earnest  hope  that  you  will  forgive  it,  and  set 
it  down  to  the  score  of  pure  inadvertence.  I 
certainly  am  not  conscious  of  having  written 
such  a  word ;  and  if,  on  various  occasions, 
when  I  was  led  to  state  my  diversity  of  im- 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  295 

pression  from  your^s,  or  my  surprise  at  your 
opinions, — I  had  known  how  to  express  my- 
self less  pointedly,  without  impairing  both  the 
perspicuity  and  force  of  my  meaning,  I  should 
certainly  have  used  in  many  instances,  lan- 
guage of  a  still  more  reduced  character.  It 
has  been  my  wish  to  remember,  in  every  word 
that  I  wrote,  that  I  was  addressing  One  whom 
I  regarded  as  a  faithful  and  devoted  Servant 
of  Christ,  and  with  whom  I  hope,  through  the 
riches  of  sovereign  grace,  to  dwell  forever  in 
a  more  enlightened  and  a  more  happy  world. 

I  am,  Reverend  and  Dear  Brother, 

Yours  in  the  best  of  bonds, 

SAMUEL  MILLER, 

Pbinceton,  Feb.  20th,  1823. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


r — —J 

ICLF  fN) 

■jUL22tt&8S4 

**C    '      ^ 

Jtu  <5  o  1971  •  * 

LD  21A-45m-9,'67 
(H5067sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


**/£ 

07&/fr 

Ms- 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

a 


W 

m 

Ilk. 

Hi 


i 


i 


a 


" 


